It's Basically a counter Argument to your Moldavian one, Mercedes makes the Cars at Brackley and the engines in Brixworth with the vast majority of the Workforce British and 2 of the 4 Principals British with the other 2 actually Austrian yet identifies as German(there is infact no head Staff of German Nationality).
The only people who I have heard make the "you build your cars in Britain, you're a British team" argument are British fans. I'm reminded of Ted Kravitz analysing the possibility of McLaren taking Stoffel Vandoorne over Jenson Button and Lotus taking Esteban Ocon instead of Jolyon Palmer at the end of last year and expressing his disappointment at the idea of "only one Brit" on the grid. And then people wonder why I don't care for British motorsport (outside Rally GB) when fans and pundits act as if the sport owes them something for being British.
I'd like this most. I wouldn't want another team to be a subsidiary to one of the big guys and never be allowed to be consisterly competitive. I've been loath in Torro Roso for yeas now because of this. Alfa should get help where possible but be allowed to be as good as they can be. Starting as a Ferrari B team of sorts means they will always be one and we don't want teams whose only purpose is to be a development and youth team.
I've never been a big fan for this very reason, but they get a pass in my book because they have brought in some great talent.
Ultimately, it's Fiat behind both teams. And if Fiat want Alfa Romeo to compete alongside Ferrari rather than play second fiddle, then that's exactly what Alfa Romeo will do. Ferrari won't have much cause for complaint. That's why this is different to the Red Bull-Toro Rosso set-up - someone else controls the purse strings.
Hardly. If they have no new parts and no young drivers, what would they get out of testing? All it's going to do is cost them money. I have heard that it costs around €2 million just to run a team at a Grand Prix, which is not the kind of money Sauber has to throw around.
No, because they have a tight budget and are struggling to find sponsors.
So.....skint. There is no point arguing semantics, they're low on funds.
I don't know what your definition of "skint" is, but down here it tends to mean someone who avoids paying money if they don't have to, even when they can afford to - in other words, that Sauber could reasonably afford to take part in the test because doing so would not hurt their bottom line in the slightest, but they choose not to because they just don't want to spend the money.
Yeah in the UK it simply means having little or no cash. I guess we'd call what you describe a tightwad.
You forget that I'm one of those bloody colonials. Like I said, down here "skint" means you're a miser.
