Jump to content


Photo

Red Bull spent $630 million on 2012 season?


  • Please log in to reply
83 replies to this topic

#1 BoschKurve

BoschKurve
  • Member

  • 1,525 posts
  • Joined: September 12

Posted 30 November 2012 - 14:10

A friend sent me this link.

http://www.nzz.ch/nz...nanz-1.17757702

Any thoughts?

It would show that Red Bull's use of Red Bull Technologies shows how useless the RRA really is. Spending $630 million on both Red Bull and Red Bull Technologies for the 2012 campaign is incredible.

Advertisement

#2 sailor

sailor
  • Member

  • 585 posts
  • Joined: May 10

Posted 30 November 2012 - 14:13

A friend sent me this link.

http://www.nzz.ch/nz...nanz-1.17757702

Any thoughts?

It would show that Red Bull's use of Red Bull Technologies shows how useless the RRA really is. Spending $630 million on both Red Bull and Red Bull Technologies for the 2012 campaign is incredible.


BS

Ferrari spends way more than anyone.
They are building a brand new Wind Tunnel ..

#3 xman

xman
  • Member

  • 853 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 30 November 2012 - 14:14

Don't know about that, but Red Bull Racing apparently gave 10,000 pounds bonuses for all staff members... I know where I would like to work :)

Source: http://www.f1katewal...son-review.html

#4 SpaMaster

SpaMaster
  • Member

  • 5,856 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 30 November 2012 - 14:21

RRA is no legal document. As of now, there is no legal limit on how much any team can spend. You can spend a trillion dollars if you want. Also, who answers for the unaccounted money spent on engines and the easy support you get for being a manufacturer's works team?

If spending money is the problem, let's talk about budget cap. If restricting the use of resources blah blah are the problem, then let that extend to every single thing that goes into a formula one car (including engine, numerously iterated product tested for other manufacturer product, number of people, manufacture-provided space and facilities, etc.)

#5 Seanspeed

Seanspeed
  • Member

  • 21,429 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 30 November 2012 - 14:28

Ferrari spends way more than anyone.

Everytime someone says this, it seems to get more true.

#6 MortenF1

MortenF1
  • Member

  • 23,172 posts
  • Joined: June 01

Posted 30 November 2012 - 14:31

They spend almost as much, but then they build their own engines, so....

#7 ayali

ayali
  • Member

  • 729 posts
  • Joined: April 11

Posted 30 November 2012 - 14:53

Who cares?

If teams were serious about a budget cap or RRA they should have let FIA regulate and control it
They didn't, FOTA is dead, so it's everybody for themselves with Ferrari and Red Bull in prime position

#8 BoschKurve

BoschKurve
  • Member

  • 1,525 posts
  • Joined: September 12

Posted 30 November 2012 - 14:57

RRA is no legal document. As of now, there is no legal limit on how much any team can spend. You can spend a trillion dollars if you want. Also, who answers for the unaccounted money spent on engines and the easy support you get for being a manufacturer's works team?

If spending money is the problem, let's talk about budget cap. If restricting the use of resources blah blah are the problem, then let that extend to every single thing that goes into a formula one car (including engine, numerously iterated product tested for other manufacturer product, number of people, manufacture-provided space and facilities, etc.)


The RRA is just something I think that serves no purpose. It's an idiotic notion at best, and a budget cap would be an even worse idea.

I'm personally in favor of unlimited caps, no testing ban, more freedom on engine development, and more restrictions on aerodynamics. Yes aero will always be a key factor, but the front wings in particular need to be severely limited.

But that $630 million puts a new spin on the whole $3 million entry fee for 2013. :eek:

#9 EvanRainer

EvanRainer
  • Member

  • 1,364 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 30 November 2012 - 15:00

As much as I would love to make sure F1 is financially viable and make sure smaller teams can compete, placing budget restrictions on a technology series doesn't make much sense. Research and development should be backed not restricted.

What they should do is better revenue sharing and funneling of money towards the bottom teams instead of Bernie's pockets.

#10 ThomFi

ThomFi
  • Member

  • 633 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 30 November 2012 - 15:02

Obviously, the numbers are from 2011 (as even stated in the article of Neue Züricher Zeitung) as they are based on annual accounts filed to the Company house.

Numbers were already discussed here, based on an article of AMuS.

2011 spending England-based teams

Red Bull fährt Konkurrenz an die Wand

Red Bull Technology spent 245 million Euro ( 207 million euro for RedBull Racing included). The $ 630 million are obviously nonsense.

Edited by ThomFi, 30 November 2012 - 15:06.


#11 Anonymous

Anonymous
  • Member

  • 2,948 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 30 November 2012 - 15:13

BS

Ferrari spends way more than anyone.
They are building a brand new Wind Tunnel ..


I lol'd.

#12 CrucialXtreme

CrucialXtreme
  • Member

  • 4,414 posts
  • Joined: October 11

Posted 30 November 2012 - 15:16

Obviously, the numbers are from 2011 (as even stated in the article of Neue Züricher Zeitung) as they are based on annual accounts filed to the Company house.

Numbers were already discussed here, based on an article of AMuS.

2011 spending England-based teams

Red Bull fährt Konkurrenz an die Wand

Red Bull Technology spent 245 million Euro ( 207 million euro for RedBull Racing included). The $ 630 million are obviously nonsense.


That doesn't mean AMuS is right. IMO, they're obviously wrong because in the source link, Horner tries to explain the huge spending by claiming it was for bonuses. Hardly something he would attempt if the figures weren't accurate.



Edit: also explains why they dropped out of FOTA because of the RRA

Horner:
Christian Horner wrote:
“Well if you look at the way the English accounts are presented, you’re looking at the gross turnover of each entity, whether it be Red Bull Technology or Red Bull Racing. Within the RRA we’ve complied fully with the RRA within Red Bull Racing, which is the entrant to the Formula 1 World Championship. Red Bull Technology is a supplier to Red Bull Racing…”
<-- he admits to 630M

Edited by CrucialXtreme, 30 November 2012 - 15:22.


#13 DanardiF1

DanardiF1
  • Member

  • 10,082 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 30 November 2012 - 15:34

BS

Ferrari spends way more than anyone.
They are building a brand new Wind Tunnel ..


Isn't building a brand new tunnel a worthwhile investment in the team's future though? That cost can easily be spread across the many seasons ahead that tunnel is used over.

#14 boldhakka

boldhakka
  • Member

  • 2,802 posts
  • Joined: September 10

Posted 30 November 2012 - 15:38

That doesn't mean AMuS is right. IMO, they're obviously wrong because in the source link, Horner tries to explain the huge spending by claiming it was for bonuses. Hardly something he would attempt if the figures weren't accurate.



Edit: also explains why they dropped out of FOTA because of the RRA

Horner:
Christian Horner wrote:
“Well if you look at the way the English accounts are presented, you’re looking at the gross turnover of each entity, whether it be Red Bull Technology or Red Bull Racing. Within the RRA we’ve complied fully with the RRA within Red Bull Racing, which is the entrant to the Formula 1 World Championship. Red Bull Technology is a supplier to Red Bull Racing…”
<-- he admits to 630M


I thought gross turnover meant revenue, I.e. how much they pulled in ( presumably via F1, sponsorship, etc.). When did turnover become equal to spending?

Someone correct me if I'm wrong.


#15 prty

prty
  • Member

  • 7,907 posts
  • Joined: April 05

Posted 30 November 2012 - 15:47

I think Red Bull in the '10's are the Ferrari of the 00's: the cheats, the arrogance, the power, the money, their conflict of interests with FIA from saving their ass in WRC...

#16 ThomFi

ThomFi
  • Member

  • 633 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 30 November 2012 - 15:49

That doesn't mean AMuS is right. IMO, they're obviously wrong because in the source link, Horner tries to explain the huge spending by claiming it was for bonuses. Hardly something he would attempt if the figures weren't accurate.



Edit: also explains why they dropped out of FOTA because of the RRA

Horner:
Christian Horner wrote:
“Well if you look at the way the English accounts are presented, you’re looking at the gross turnover of each entity, whether it be Red Bull Technology or Red Bull Racing. Within the RRA we’ve complied fully with the RRA within Red Bull Racing, which is the entrant to the Formula 1 World Championship. Red Bull Technology is a supplier to Red Bull Racing…”
<-- he admits to 630M

Boschkurve claims the numbers are about the spending in 2012. This is wrong. "2011 sind dort die Umsätze der Firmen Red Bull Racing und Red Bull Technology gestiegen, auf zusammen 585 Millionen Franken."
AMuS is a reliable source about F1, Neue Züricher Zeitung is just some swiss daily news paper .
And $ 630 million seems to be way too high, as it could be realistic, but we will see how it turns out.


#17 stanga

stanga
  • Member

  • 1,124 posts
  • Joined: April 11

Posted 30 November 2012 - 15:50

I thought gross turnover meant revenue, I.e. how much they pulled in ( presumably via F1, sponsorship, etc.). When did turnover become equal to spending?

Someone correct me if I'm wrong.


It depends what their profit was... if they made no profit, all that revenue was spent. In simplistic terms.

#18 boldhakka

boldhakka
  • Member

  • 2,802 posts
  • Joined: September 10

Posted 30 November 2012 - 15:56

It depends what their profit was... if they made no profit, all that revenue was spent. In simplistic terms.


Right, and some of that spending might have well been capital investments. For example, an investment in a wind tunnel needs to be accrued over several seasons (otherwise nobody can build a new tunnel under RRA).

I'll take AMuS's word for it (200M - 300M) until someone looks at the original source and breaks it down properly like they did.

#19 sailor

sailor
  • Member

  • 585 posts
  • Joined: May 10

Posted 30 November 2012 - 16:26

It depends what their profit was... if they made no profit, all that revenue was spent. In simplistic terms.


Yes in simplistic terms but the problem is RBT 's sole client is RBR and all the revenue for RBT is direct spending for RBR.

But then if thats the case then we are basically counting the same spend twice. RBR uses its 200 odd mills to buy stuff from RBT and RBT includes it as its revenue (and that gets counted as well - LOL)

One should only consider RBR's outgoings (not revenue ) as the spending.

Its simply ridiculous to spend more than half a bill on running 2 cars - its simply not viable - something is fishy here

Advertisement

#20 Kelateboy

Kelateboy
  • Member

  • 7,032 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 30 November 2012 - 16:34

A friend sent me this link.

http://www.nzz.ch/nz...nanz-1.17757702

Any thoughts?

It would show that Red Bull's use of Red Bull Technologies shows how useless the RRA really is. Spending $630 million on both Red Bull and Red Bull Technologies for the 2012 campaign is incredible.

The figure is mind-boggling.

Having said that, I don't think the figure is accurate. Such a spending spree is not sustainable.

#21 paulrobs

paulrobs
  • Member

  • 664 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 30 November 2012 - 16:42

Whatever your view that's an eye watering amount of money :eek:

#22 repete

repete
  • Member

  • 347 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 30 November 2012 - 17:28

Yes in simplistic terms but the problem is RBT 's sole client is RBR and all the revenue for RBT is direct spending for RBR.

But then if thats the case then we are basically counting the same spend twice. RBR uses its 200 odd mills to buy stuff from RBT and RBT includes it as its revenue (and that gets counted as well - LOL)

One should only consider RBR's outgoings (not revenue ) as the spending.

Its simply ridiculous to spend more than half a bill on running 2 cars - its simply not viable - something is fishy here

RBR is not the sole client of RBT.

#23 DanardiF1

DanardiF1
  • Member

  • 10,082 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 30 November 2012 - 17:56

RBR is not the sole client of RBT.


But it doesn't spend massive amounts on supplying gearboxes and hydraulics to Caterham. In fact, as Caterham only get year-old gearboxes and pay a decent amount for them, that's something RBT are making money on, rather than their 'supply' of Red Bull Racing...

#24 shonguiz

shonguiz
  • Member

  • 3,714 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 30 November 2012 - 18:02

Ridiculous to think that RBR can overshadow ferrari in term of spending.

#25 repete

repete
  • Member

  • 347 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 30 November 2012 - 18:26

But it doesn't spend massive amounts on supplying gearboxes and hydraulics to Caterham. In fact, as Caterham only get year-old gearboxes and pay a decent amount for them, that's something RBT are making money on, rather than their 'supply' of Red Bull Racing...

It still doesnt change the fact RBT supplies other teams besides RBR. And they supply more than just gearboxes.

#26 fabr68

fabr68
  • Member

  • 3,963 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 30 November 2012 - 18:33

BS

Ferrari spends way more than anyone.
They are building a brand new Wind Tunnel ..


Source?

Ferrari has not built the tunnel yet.

#27 ThomFi

ThomFi
  • Member

  • 633 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 30 November 2012 - 18:36

Yes in simplistic terms but the problem is RBT 's sole client is RBR and all the revenue for RBT is direct spending for RBR.

But then if thats the case then we are basically counting the same spend twice. RBR uses its 200 odd mills to buy stuff from RBT and RBT includes it as its revenue (and that gets counted as well - LOL)

One should only consider RBR's outgoings (not revenue ) as the spending.

Its simply ridiculous to spend more than half a bill on running 2 cars - its simply not viable - something is fishy here


Yes, it should also be mentioned, that the swiss article is talking about "Umsatz", that's the german word for sales, turnover or revenue, not about the team budget. The article doesn't claim, that Red Bull is spending $ 630 million.
In the contrary, according to the same swiss magazine (Neue Züricher Zeitung), this year's team budget of Red Bull is 280 million Swiss Franks = 301 million US Dollar or 232 million Euros.

Die Formel-1-Teams und -Fahrer




#28 Sakae

Sakae
  • Member

  • 19,256 posts
  • Joined: December 03

Posted 30 November 2012 - 18:41

A friend sent me this link.

http://www.nzz.ch/nz...nanz-1.17757702

Any thoughts?

It would show that Red Bull's use of Red Bull Technologies shows how useless the RRA really is. Spending $630 million on both Red Bull and Red Bull Technologies for the 2012 campaign is incredible.

Very unlikely figure, and who knows what's included in comparative credible audit.

#29 CrucialXtreme

CrucialXtreme
  • Member

  • 4,414 posts
  • Joined: October 11

Posted 30 November 2012 - 18:43

Yes, it should also be mentioned, that the swiss article is talking about "Umsatz", that's the german word for sales, turnover or revenue, not about the team budget. The article doesn't claim, that Red Bull is spending $ 630 million.
In the contrary, according to the same swiss magazine (Neue Züricher Zeitung), this year's team budget of Red Bull is 280 million Swiss Franks = 301 million US Dollar or 232 million Euros.

Die Formel-1-Teams und -Fahrer


Right, that's just Red Bull Racing. That's not Red Bull Technology Ltd which employs Adrian Newey and many other Aerodynamicsts that work on the cars & build the chassis's, etc.
I'm not dogging RB, not in the least, if you have it, spend it. But the Designer of Red Bulls F1 cars, the guy who is solely responsible for the development direction of the car throughout the year, the Genius Newey doesn't even work for the team, Red Bull Racing. They're clever guys.

#30 ThomFi

ThomFi
  • Member

  • 633 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 30 November 2012 - 19:11

Right, that's just Red Bull Racing. That's not Red Bull Technology Ltd which employs Adrian Newey and many other Aerodynamicsts that work on the cars & build the chassis's, etc.
I'm not dogging RB, not in the least, if you have it, spend it. But the Designer of Red Bulls F1 cars, the guy who is solely responsible for the development direction of the car throughout the year, the Genius Newey doesn't even work for the team, Red Bull Racing. They're clever guys.


But that's the problem, if you add the revenue numbers of both companies together, you count one Euro twice. You could even put a third company right between them, if you add all the revenues of this three companies, the revenue would be around 3 times as high, let's say around $ 900 million. But of course only 300 million are spend.
In this article from February 2011, Mateschitz is complaining exactly about that issue.

Mateschitz: RBR fourth in budget rank




#31 DanardiF1

DanardiF1
  • Member

  • 10,082 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 30 November 2012 - 19:17

Right, that's just Red Bull Racing. That's not Red Bull Technology Ltd which employs Adrian Newey and many other Aerodynamicsts that work on the cars & build the chassis's, etc.
I'm not dogging RB, not in the least, if you have it, spend it. But the Designer of Red Bulls F1 cars, the guy who is solely responsible for the development direction of the car throughout the year, the Genius Newey doesn't even work for the team, Red Bull Racing. They're clever guys.


So they're spending all that money before they've even factored in the guy who's designing the car!

Madness, and they have the cheek to bill themselves as a 'small, independent team'...

They're the equivalent of Man City or Chelsea, a sugar-daddy run outfit that uses financial doping to get ahead... of course Ferrari and McLaren spend massive amounts as well, but they have built themselves into that position (McLaren more so than Ferrari).

#32 Watkins74

Watkins74
  • Member

  • 6,090 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 30 November 2012 - 19:20

BS

Ferrari spends way more than anyone.
They are building a brand new Wind Tunnel ..

Amazing how it only took 1 post to turn this against Ferrari.

#33 stanga

stanga
  • Member

  • 1,124 posts
  • Joined: April 11

Posted 30 November 2012 - 19:22

Right, and some of that spending might have well been capital investments. For example, an investment in a wind tunnel needs to be accrued over several seasons (otherwise nobody can build a new tunnel under RRA).

I'll take AMuS's word for it (200M - 300M) until someone looks at the original source and breaks it down properly like they did.


Capital investment is a balance sheet transaction, not a P & L one. If they made no profit, and a large capital investment, then even more cash was spent.

#34 CrucialXtreme

CrucialXtreme
  • Member

  • 4,414 posts
  • Joined: October 11

Posted 30 November 2012 - 19:29

But that's the problem, if you add the revenue numbers of both companies together, you count one Euro twice. You could even put a third company right between them, if you add all the revenues of this three companies, the revenue would be around 3 times as high, let's say around $ 900 million. But of course only 300 million are spend.
In this article from February 2011, Mateschitz is complaining exactly about that issue.

Mateschitz: RBR fourth in budget rank


I disagree. Both companies don't have the exact same expenditures so I don't think you can broadly say that adding both companies totals are counting the same Euro twice. Bottom lime is they're not spending money on the exact same things but both are spending for F1 therefore both figures count. IMO.

Edit: I don't believe a thing that comes out of Mateschitz's mouth, just a personal opinion. What's he going to say? We're spending the most in F1?? Heck no.

Edited by CrucialXtreme, 30 November 2012 - 19:31.


#35 Seanspeed

Seanspeed
  • Member

  • 21,429 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 30 November 2012 - 19:51

Amazing how it only took 1 post to turn this against Ferrari.

Deflection deflection deflection.

#36 undersquare

undersquare
  • Member

  • 18,929 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 30 November 2012 - 20:06

Deflection deflection deflection.

Well it's Ferrari who have the extra FOM money and tobacco sponsorship, which is income unavailable to their competitors. They set the standard for buying success.

So when RBR are criticised for buying success, there's no way you can avoid bringing Ferrari into it.

#37 ThomFi

ThomFi
  • Member

  • 633 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 30 November 2012 - 20:08

I disagree. Both companies don't have the exact same expenditures so I don't think you can broadly say that adding both companies totals are counting the same Euro twice. Bottom lime is they're not spending money on the exact same things but both are spending for F1 therefore both figures count. IMO.

Edit: I don't believe a thing that comes out of Mateschitz's mouth, just a personal opinion. What's he going to say? We're spending the most in F1?? Heck no.



Well if team budget and revenue is the same to you, so be it. AMuS includes the numbers of Red Bull Racing into the Numbers of Red Bull Technology, that at least makes sense to me.
I could easily blow up every revenue by 5 times for example, by just putting 5 companies in a chain and adding all their revenues together. But that doesn't mean I had to spend 5 times the money.
And now, you call Mateschitz even a liar. That's just low.


#38 Seanspeed

Seanspeed
  • Member

  • 21,429 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 30 November 2012 - 20:21

Well it's Ferrari who have the extra FOM money and tobacco sponsorship, which is income unavailable to their competitors. They set the standard for buying success.

So when RBR are criticised for buying success, there's no way you can avoid bringing Ferrari into it.

There is a way, but it would involve not disliking Ferrari from the get-go.

I'm not gonna comment on the 'buying success' stuff, sorry.

Edited by Seanspeed, 30 November 2012 - 20:22.


#39 CrucialXtreme

CrucialXtreme
  • Member

  • 4,414 posts
  • Joined: October 11

Posted 30 November 2012 - 21:02

Well if team budget and revenue is the same to you, so be it. AMuS includes the numbers of Red Bull Racing into the Numbers of Red Bull Technology, that at least makes sense to me.
I could easily blow up every revenue by 5 times for example, by just putting 5 companies in a chain and adding all their revenues together. But that doesn't mean I had to spend 5 times the money.
And now, you call Mateschitz even a liar. That's just low.


I didn't call him a liar per se. Just said I don't believe everything that comes out of his mouth. I don't expect any owner to come out and say they're the highest spending team in F1. Furthermore he says "he believes" which is far from factual evidence so in other word it's his opinion. Nothing more, nothing less.

Bottom line is Red Bull Technology is there for a reason and its sole job is to provide Red Bull Racing in a way to avoid RRA restrictions. Plain and simple mate. The possibilities are endless. Red Bull Technology is an entity that does wind tunnel & CFD development for Red Bull Racing. Being they are not a part of the racing team there are not restricted to the same hour/miles restrictions that other teams(RBR included). Nor is Red Bull Racing responsible for the new technology updates as said facilities etc. So there's less money that RBR has to put on its books, but that in reality is theirs and they benefit from.

This goes far deeper than you're giving credit for and I'm trying to figure out if you're just naive or purposely missing the point. Teams exploit loopholes. Red Bull, Ferrari, McLaren, all of them. It's what they do. It's what F1 is all about mate both on and off the track.

Edited by CrucialXtreme, 30 November 2012 - 21:03.


Advertisement

#40 Diablobb81

Diablobb81
  • Member

  • 8,243 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 30 November 2012 - 21:06

AMuS has been one of the best resources for F1 this year . So i tend to believe them. RB might be the biggest spenders but 630 mil seems ridiculous.

Edited by Diablobb81, 30 November 2012 - 21:06.


#41 repete

repete
  • Member

  • 347 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 30 November 2012 - 21:55

Right, that's just Red Bull Racing. That's not Red Bull Technology Ltd which employs Adrian Newey and many other Aerodynamicsts that work on the cars & build the chassis's, etc.
I'm not dogging RB, not in the least, if you have it, spend it. But the Designer of Red Bulls F1 cars, the guy who is solely responsible for the development direction of the car throughout the year, the Genius Newey doesn't even work for the team, Red Bull Racing. They're clever guys.

Red Bull is not the only team who does this. McLaren has MTC, Ferrari probably the same.

#42 ThomFi

ThomFi
  • Member

  • 633 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 30 November 2012 - 21:58

I didn't call him a liar per se. Just said I don't believe everything that comes out of his mouth. I don't expect any owner to come out and say they're the highest spending team in F1. Furthermore he says "he believes" which is far from factual evidence so in other word it's his opinion. Nothing more, nothing less.

Bottom line is Red Bull Technology is there for a reason and its sole job is to provide Red Bull Racing in a way to avoid RRA restrictions. Plain and simple mate. The possibilities are endless. Red Bull Technology is an entity that does wind tunnel & CFD development for Red Bull Racing. Being they are not a part of the racing team there are not restricted to the same hour/miles restrictions that other teams(RBR included). Nor is Red Bull Racing responsible for the new technology updates as said facilities etc. So there's less money that RBR has to put on its books, but that in reality is theirs and they benefit from.

This goes far deeper than you're giving credit for and I'm trying to figure out if you're just naive or purposely missing the point. Teams exploit loopholes. Red Bull, Ferrari, McLaren, all of them. It's what they do. It's what F1 is all about mate both on and off the track.


If you are honest, you would have to admit, that you have no source for the alleged spending of $ 630 million, because you confused two different terms.
I don't know how much they really spend, but I know one thing, no one (including the swiss paper) claims, that $ 630 million were spend. This is what we are talking about.
And Red Bull Technology was founded in 2004, the RRA only exist since 2010. Red Bull Technology was a loop hole to run two teams (Red Bull Racing and Toro Rosso) with the same chassis, which otherwise was prohibited. It's purpose was to save money, not to be tool for spending even more.



#43 sailor

sailor
  • Member

  • 585 posts
  • Joined: May 10

Posted 30 November 2012 - 22:05

Right, that's just Red Bull Racing. That's not Red Bull Technology Ltd which employs Adrian Newey and many other Aerodynamicsts that work on the cars & build the chassis's, etc.
I'm not dogging RB, not in the least, if you have it, spend it. But the Designer of Red Bulls F1 cars, the guy who is solely responsible for the development direction of the car throughout the year, the Genius Newey doesn't even work for the team, Red Bull Racing. They're clever guys.

Who s to say RBR don't pay RBT for Newey s consultancy services.

That's how inter company commercial arrangements will work.

So we should simply ignore what RBT earn or spend.

Real spend is what RBR show as expenses. Which will include Adrian s services

Edited by sailor, 30 November 2012 - 22:07.


#44 CrucialXtreme

CrucialXtreme
  • Member

  • 4,414 posts
  • Joined: October 11

Posted 30 November 2012 - 22:12

Red Bull is not the only team who does this. McLaren has MTC, Ferrari probably the same.

I never said otherwise. The only question would be what is the difference in spending between the teams.

If you are honest, you would have to admit, that you have no source for the alleged spending of $ 630 million, because you confused two different terms.
I don't know how much they really spend, but I know one thing, no one (including the swiss paper) claims, that $ 630 million were spend. This is what we are talking about.
And Red Bull Technology was founded in 2004, the RRA only exist since 2010. Red Bull Technology was a loop hole to run two teams (Red Bull Racing and Toro Rosso) with the same chassis, which otherwise was prohibited. It's purpose was to save money, not to be tool for spending even more.

I didn't confuse two terms and the Swiss publication was quite clear, whether you want to believe it or not. We'll agree to disagree since you believe it's not possible for RBR & RBT to spend different amounts of money for the same goal. Other people have posted that McLaren do this to a point as well, and I'm sure Ferrari too however you believe RB don't. No problem.

#45 stanga

stanga
  • Member

  • 1,124 posts
  • Joined: April 11

Posted 30 November 2012 - 22:13

Who s to say RBR don't pay RBT for Newey s consultancy services.

That's how inter company commercial arrangements will work.

So we should simply ignore what RBT earn or spend.

Real spend is what RBR show as expenses. Which will include Adrian s services


No.

If they are part of the same group, on consolidation, intercompany transactions (including revenue and management recharges) cancel out. RBT and RBR will be consolidated at some point I suspect - this maybe the AMuS number.

#46 ThomFi

ThomFi
  • Member

  • 633 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 30 November 2012 - 23:15

I didn't confuse two terms and the Swiss publication was quite clear, whether you want to believe it or not. We'll agree to disagree since you believe it's not possible for RBR & RBT to spend different amounts of money for the same goal. Other people have posted that McLaren do this to a point as well, and I'm sure Ferrari too however you believe RB don't. No problem.


You can repeat this over and over again, but i'am a native speaker, and the author is not saying that they spend $ 630 million. And i never claimed that it's impossible that RBR & RBT spend different amounts of money for the same goal.
Since years, we have different sources for the team budgets and Red Bull never even came close to a sum of $ 630 million. On the contrary, even a budget of 250 million is insane.
And apart from complaints about Red Bull ignoring RRA, Toto Wolff is also quoted as saying, that Red Bull spend 250.000 million Euros = 324 million Dollar.

Horner ‘comfortable’ with Red Bull’s spending

No one can tell me, that they even spend further 300 million Dollar for one season. This would be beyond insane.

And in this article of AMuS, Marko is also saying, that one budget includes the other one and someone wrongly added the figures.
Kein Team ist so effizient wie Red Bull

Edited by ThomFi, 01 December 2012 - 00:11.


#47 Kyo

Kyo
  • Member

  • 1,313 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 30 November 2012 - 23:51

So Red Bull has a turnover of EUR 4.253 billion but they spend $630 million on F1? I doubt that.

#48 undersquare

undersquare
  • Member

  • 18,929 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 01 December 2012 - 00:06

So Red Bull has a turnover of EUR 4.253 billion but they spend $630 million on F1? I doubt that.

They spend most of their money on marketing, the product costs almost nothing.

#49 BillBald

BillBald
  • Member

  • 5,800 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 01 December 2012 - 00:23

Who s to say RBR don't pay RBT for Newey s consultancy services.

That's how inter company commercial arrangements will work.

So we should simply ignore what RBT earn or spend.

Real spend is what RBR show as expenses. Which will include Adrian s services


I think you're being a bit naive here.

For all we know, RBR could have paid RBT $10 for Adrian's services.

Look at the way Starbucks, Google or Amazon manipulate payments between their companies (for tax avoidance purposes, but it's the same principle).

Edited by BillBald, 01 December 2012 - 00:24.


#50 fabr68

fabr68
  • Member

  • 3,963 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 01 December 2012 - 00:30

Funny how a "Red Bull spent 600 million" thread turned into a "Ferrari buys its success" in a matter of a few posts.

Every thread is a Ferrari thread in this forum :lol: