Red Bull boss, Christian Horner insists his team gained no advantage from its alleged breach of the budget cap, whilst hitting out at McLaren boss, Zak Brown for his cheat claims.

With the paddock - and social media - abuzz, Horner was asked for the latest developments following a week in which it has been claimed Red Bull is in talks with the FIA.

"The latest on that is that we are in a process with the FIA," he said. "We're hoping to get closure on that. And at that point in time, then all the facts will be laid on the table and we'll be able to talk very openly about the cap, and why we feel that our relevant costs are fully in-line. We're in the process, we're working with the FIA . They're diligently trying to do their job and hopefully, in the near future, will have a resolution."

Asked about the process, he said: "Well, it's a new process. I mean, what you have to remember, with these regulations, is that they were introduced, obviously, at a level where the $175 million, it was then reduced by $30 million during the pandemic, it's a complicated set of regulations. It's 52 pages.

"Of course we've been through that process and 2021 was the first ever year of a set of very complicated financial regulations, which of course, have varying... interpretations to them from different accounting specialists.

"Obviously, the findings of the FIA have been made public recently. And we're now in a voluntary process with the FIA, going through that process with them. And I hope you will be able to conclude it in the near future. But that's where we currently are."

At this point attention turned to Brown, who in a letter to F1, the FIA and most teams this week, claimed that exceeding the cap was "cheating".

"I think the budget cap is very important for the future of the sport," said the American. "I think everybody recognises that and that's why it was put in place.

"It is complicated, it is new," he continued, "I think none of us know any details. So, I think we need to wait for the FIA and Red Bull to finish up the process that they're in.

"I think just like on the Super Licence, it was a shame not to get Colton Herta into the sport. I think he too would have been an excellent addition to the grid. And I think with this being a new process, what we need to do is come out of the backside of this, and learn from it and see what we need to do - as we need to do with other regulations - modify them from time-to-time.

"I think we all have opinions but we need to kind of see it through and then - as the teams, the FIA and Formula 1 do - sit around a table and say this probably isn't perfect. I don't think anyone thought it would be perfect. And then go: 'What should we do to modify it moving forward?' But fundamentally, the cost cap is a very important part of Formula 1's future."

Asked about his letter, he said: "All the teams have opinions, and some speak about it vocally, others don't necessarily always bring forward some specific views. So, I thought it was important from a transparency standpoint, we all sit around the table, there's a lot of times we discuss things openly and then there's a lot of back-channelling, and I thought I would just lay it out there - not knowing the facts of the case.

"So, it was more of a response of 'if these types of things have happened'. It's not for McLaren to decide they have or haven't, but to put forward now that we understand the ramifications if you go over, what some of those benefits can be and how we should address them. So, it's the same conversation, I think, we would have had when we came up with the cap, we just never really spoke about what would be some of the potential consequences and, like all the teams do, suggest to the FIA some solutions for them to take onboard - but ultimately for them to decide."

"As Zak said, it's a process, it's a new process," said Horner. "We made an interim submission in 2021. There was no feedback or suggestion that we were doing anything that was contrary to any regulations. And then, of course, the submission was made in March. Again, we didn't hear anything from that submission in March until the latter part of September. So, it's a significant period of time that there was... and, of course, there's also duty within the regulations for the FIA to guide, to have effective compliance."

Asked, whatever the rights and wrongs, if Red Bull has benefited from the overspend, Horner was adamant.

"No, absolutely not," he replied. "I mean, what you've got to look at is what are the relevant costs? And what are the relevant costs within the cap and what's outside of the cap? And that's where the interpretation comes from. And our view is that our relevant costs are within the cap.

"Now, obviously, we are in discussion with the FIA about what those costs are, and what are mitigating potential circumstances, you know, etcetera. So, we had zero benefit from a development perspective or an operational perspective, either for 2021 or for 2022 from the way that we operated it within the cap.

"Our submission was significantly below the cap. We expected certain things to be potentially challenged or clarified, as is the process in a brand new set of regulations, but based on external, professional accounting third parties, the interpretation of those rules, of a 52-page document to police this, were very clear from our side. So, we absolutely and categorically don't feel that we've had any advantage either in 2021, or 2022, or '23 or '24 or some team's even talked about '26, is totally fictitious."

Asked about Brown's "cheating" claim, the anger on Horner's face was obvious.

"Well, obviously, Zak's letter - which wasn't copied to us, obviously - we've had sight of that letter, and it's tremendously disappointing.

"For a fellow competitor to be accusing you of cheating, to accuse you of fraudulent activity, is shocking. It's absolutely shocking that another competitor, without the facts, without any knowledge of the details, can be making that kind of accusation. And that goes... you know, we've been on trial because of public accusations since Singapore. And the rhetoric of cheats, the rhetoric of... that we've had this enormous benefit, that the numbers have been put out in the media that are miles out of reality, and the damage that does to the brand, to our partners, to our drivers, to our workforce, in an age where mental health is prevalent, we're seeing significant issues now, within our workforce. We're getting kids that are being bullied in playgrounds that are employee's children.

"That is not right, through fictitious allegations from other teams. And you cannot go around just making that kind of allegation without any fact, or substance. So, we absolutely are appalled at the behaviour of some of our competitors."

"Look, my letter set out that I think if someone - a team - spends more than the cap, they're going to get an advantage," said Brown. "And the cap is a rule, no different than the technical rules in the sport.

"We're not taking a view whether they did or didn't. My letter was: if someone has, then here are the things that we think should be addressed. No different than if a ride height is incorrect, or a flexi wing, or whatever the case may be.

"I didn't mention any teams. It was a general response. Now that we are into the cost cap era, if someone breaches that, here's what we think some of the ramifications are. I have no idea what the number is, I know none of the details. If we had more money to spend, that would put us in a better light and performance, more people, more upgrades, whatever the case may be. So, we feel it's a performance benefit if someone has spent more than the allocated cost cap, that is up to the FIA to determine whether they have or haven't."

Asekd about the Accepted Breach Agreement, Horner said: "As per the regulations, we've been invited to enter into an ABA, which is for a minor breach, and a procedural breach, that you have the opportunity to discuss with the FIA and present your case, your position on this. And we're in that process and have been for the last... pretty much, what, 10 days or so? Going backwards and forwards with the FIA.

"I hoped for it to be resolved before this weekend. I'm hopeful that it can be resolved during this weekend. But should that not happen, the next process is it goes to the cost cap administration panel and then beyond that there's the International Court of Appeal. So, it could draw it out for another six, nine months, which is not our intention. We want closure on 2021. I think that we've had some healthy and productive discussions with the FIA, and I'm hopeful of being able to reach a conclusion in the near future."

Asked if the issue had been impacted by amendments that came along after the financial submissions were made in March, such the way unused spare parts are allocated to heritage departments, Horner said: "Yes, in a simple answer. We feel that, again, at such an immature set of regulations, there's going to be clarifications and tidying up, and I think, certainly how unused inventory was treated was, in our view, a change to the regulation.

"Then perhaps... Certainly we applied a very strict ruling in the way that we treated our new stock. And I think that a clarification came out in June that changed the application of that. That had a seven-digit effect on our submission. But, of course, retrospectively, we were not allowed to change your submission. What you have to remember is that the submission can constitute about 75,000 line items. So, there's an enormous amount of data that has to be inputted into these submissions and I think it's only natural that, in a first year we have a set of very complicated regulations, to be able to get its arms around everything, is almost impossible. Almost impossible. And interpretations have been made, maybe by other teams have been slightly different, and then a change like that has a huge swing in your application of how you've completed your form which, had we been able to resubmit at that point in time, we would have treated very, very differently. So, you know, there's probably several teams that have been affected in that manner."

In terms of how the FIA, which has received much criticism, has handled the matter, and the ongoing concern over transparency, Horner said: "It's a confidential discussion between ourselves and the FIA. What I will say is that once, hopefully, this situation is concluded there will be complete transparency and I will talk you through the reasoning behind our submission and the position that we had, as to why we felt that each of the line items that have been challenged we believe there's a contrary position.

"So yes, and it should be transparent. The whole thing should be transparent. There's going to be no private, you know, secret deal. I think it would all be absolutely above board. This is very different to a previous situation.

"We can't be waiting and being in October, November to find out, you know, the outcome of a previous year's championship," he added, "and I think the FIA is going to put the resource in to deal with that, because I think, what you have to remember is this set of regulations was placed upon the FIA to police and I think it's probably taken them by surprise during the last 18 months, just the scale, particularly with the scale of some of the teams and the complexity of it, to have to have to deal with it.

"I think they've done obviously the best they can with the resources that they have, but, you know, obviously, the process, we're assured will be a lot quicker next year or for this year. And of course, you know, there are significant challenges within 2022 that when you look at the amount of crash damage some of the teams are having, some of the update levels that are going on, you know, there are precedents that will be set from 2021 will have to apply and with a consistency in 2022.

"This year is a challenge with the energy costs and everything else associated with it," he repied when asked if 5% is to big a margin for 'error'. "If I look at the facts, Max Verstappen has had the least amount of accident damage of any driver on the grid? Sergio Pérez is certainly at the lower end. If I look at the amount of developments compared to some of our rivals we are significantly below that. If I look at the quantity of parts that we're bringing, if I look at where we are in the freight, we're probably the sixth or seventh team that brings in terms of freight volumes to a Grand Prix. So, having been through this process, one can never say that you're fully confident. But you know, I cannot believe when we look at the statutory accounts of others, and so on, that we are in any way out of kilter with the rest of the field.

"The 5% window? Again, I think it's part of the regulations that potentially need to be looked at, because the ranging suite of penalties, again, are totally subjective. And I think this is what's contributed to a concerted campaign for there to be a draconian penalty on Red Bull for what... At the end of the day, you know, we're talking probably... What is in contention with the FIA is a couple of hundred thousand dollars.

"So, and as I say, I will explain later why we have a differing opinion within that submission of, you know, what, what our position was versus another. But what has been just tremendously disappointing through this whole process is that the leakage that happened is that then suddenly we are tried and subjected to what, three weeks of effective abuse. And then to be seeing... I mean, Zak's got a very convenient memory of the letter that he wrote, accusing us of cheating and being fraudulent. You know, it's just not right. It's just not right. And this has to stop."

"I think in hindsight, the 5% is way too high," admitted Brown. "It's something all the teams discussed and agreed upon. So I think that's something coming out of this that we need to look at, because five 5% is, you know, a very substantial amount of money in percentage basis to things like car development, or people to hire, or wherever you may choose to spend the money. So I think that definitely needs to be reviewed."

Check out our Saturday gallery from COTA here.