The logic is flawed, but if you take away Red Bull's 65m, you also take away the title sponsor and a lot of sponsor surface on the car. It doesn't seem crazy that the worth of that is actually close to the 65m.
Renaults 90m seems to be in a different ballpark though.
I think 65 million is a bloody brilliant Return on Investment for RB.
The exposure us so much more worth than that. 65 million is peanuts for their marketing budget.
No it doesn't. If income matches expenditure the team itself has broken even. It is Red Bull itself that has spent $65 million on the F1 team and that isn't money that has been 'lost' if you take into account brand exposure as advertising spend.
The budget shortfall to the top 2 is large but seems to have narrowed a bit. I'm not that concerned for 2020 but it is concerning for 2021 as all the teams will have to develop two cars at the same time this year, inevitably the better funded and resourced teams will eke out an advantage over those who are less well supplied. That said Ferrari does not have a good history of making good on their budget advantage over their rivals, whether it be Mercedes or Red Bull so in reality the only team RBR are handicapped against is Mercedes.
I don't disgaree it's good value for money. Lords knows the benefits Red Bull (the drinks company) get from their advertising in F1 but it must be phenomenal and totally worth the investment. I was simply referring to the pointless 'break even' graphic as you know that if RBR was $100M short somehow RB would top it up and if they were going to make profit RB would reduce their 'sponsorship', therefore they will ALWAYS break even and it's pointless and spin to show it as if it's an achievement.