So what happened at Manor?

There have been many different stories circulating about what has been going on at Manor in recent months and there have been many different interpretations of the problems. It has been assumed (by me and others) that the key was money, but the truth seems to be that the stumbling blocks more complicated than that. Firstly, the owners wanted to hold on to part of the team, secondly there were questions over indemnities relating to potential liabilities, notably the possibility of legal action from the Bianchi Family and thirdly, there was a massive hole in the 2017 budget, even before Manor was knocked back to 11th in the Constructors’ Championship by Sauber in Brazil.

This is what I have been able to ascertain, although no-one wants to go on record about the different stories, so we must take them on that basis.

There is no doubt that from the start of the adventure in 2015 the new owner Stephen Fitzpatrick was looking for people to buy into the team and help him keep it going. he was involved in a busy role with his energy company and did not come to many races. He engaged a merchant bank, believed to be Rothschild, to find possible investors, but it was clear that with Manor’s poor results and no desire to sell full ownership, there was no deal to be had. The team did better in 2016 with Mercedes engines and there were talks with at least three different investor groups: one American (Tavo Hellmund’s group), one from Indonesia (CGF) and another which seems to have been from Mexico, which may have involved Esteban Gutierrez’s backers.

None of these discussions were successful because no-one was offered an acceptable deal. Whether this was because of the price or the fact that Fitzpatrick wanted to hold on to equity is not clear. The Mexicans were the last to give up, after the Brazilian GP, when the team’s financial situation took a big dive. At that point the team’s value fell to nothing as there was a hole in the 2017 budget of an estimated $40 million. Thus, even without the Brazilian result, the team did not have a budget to race in 2017, as the prize money lost was nowhere near $40 million in value. The team owners were thus faced with having to offer a debt-free team for nothing if they were allowed to remain as a minority shareholder. They would, of course, have been called upon to invest in line with any remaining shareholding, but at that point they chose to stop the money supply to the team, which meant that it was unable to continue the build programme of the 2017 cars.

This may have made financial sense, but it was a huge mistake because it meant that the team would not have cars ready for 2017. One can see why the sellers felt it was a bad idea to go on funding, because they might simply be wasting more money.

The other mistake seemed to be the continued insistence on keeping some of the equity, which meant that the new owners would not get a clean slate. There were also questions of indemnities against potential liabilities with regard to the Jules Bianchi accident in 2014. The owners were talking about giving the team away at this point and they were not willing to give indemnities, on the basis that when they acquired the team they took on the risks as well and did not see why new owners should not do the same, given that they would be getting a lot for nothing, and so should assume the risks as well.

The sellers continued to try to find someone to take the team off their hands and the Indonesian bid came back to the negotiating table and was granted a period of exclusive negotiation before Christmas. The deal came so close that director John McQuilliam resigned in expectation of new ownership, but the proof of funds wanted by the owners did not materialise. In the end, with time running out, the discussions were terminated. With a $40m shortfall for the 2017 budget there was no possibility of completing the 2017 upcoming season, so the operating company was put into administration.

Even after that, no-one was able to agree terms on the acquisition of the holding company, for the same reasons as stated above.

Will things now change? The only real difference is that the owners now have no claim on any shares and are out of the picture, unless they join forces with a bid to acquire the team from the administrator. The question of the financial hole still needs to be addressed and the question of indemnity is still there, but the biggest problem now is time.

One can blame everything on the fact that the prize money does not cover the costs of competing in F1, but if it did, there would always be teams simply cruising along, the owners being there just for the parties that surround F1 and not really caring about the racing.

 

 

Please think about donating to the Jill Saward Fund, which aims to continue the work of my sister Jill Saward (1965-2017), who campaigned to help rape victims and to reduce the number of rapes in the world.

63 thoughts on “So what happened at Manor?

  1. Oh dear these owners weren’t very good planners. Joe what this shows to me with F1’s current financial structuring is that under the current money distribution system only new privateer teams that are prepared to have a close early relationship with a manufacturer ( like the Haas-Ferrari link up) can be successful and that those trying to go from absolute scratch with no manufacturer assistance are mostly doomed to failure unless your backed an an Arab Sheikh possibly and even then there are no guarantees of success Do you agree Joe or am I being a doom merchant?

        1. The second comment ? It’s a correction of a typo . Apologies for that However what I was asking is a Haas-Ferrari model the only way to be successful for a new team under F1’s current financial structure in regards prize money?

  2. The Bianchi situation has one asking questions.

    Are there suggestions that Manor were in someone responsible for the accident? To my knowledge it was driver error with maybe lax safety at the track that was the cause.

    And from all I’ve read about the Bianchi family I would have thought an F1 team going out of business would not be something they desired.

    1. in both fatal accidents involving Manor/Marussia cars the technical part of the reports pointed towards the BBW FAILSAFE SYSTEM being incompatible with the failsafe system *the failsafe algorithm is designed to override the throttle and cut the engine but was inhibited by the torque coordinator which controls the rear brake-by-wire system.”.

    2. I could be wrong but was there not a question raised at the time about whether the team had instructed Bianchi to drive faster than the VSC delta?
      Presumably with no team and no responsible party remaining,all legal options for the Bianchi family are now permanently frustrated.

      1. The Bianchi family lawsuit is against the FIA and Manor Racing and sadly I can’t see the FIA going bust any time soon so the Bianchis can still have their day in court, even if there is no Manor. However, litigation can be more complicated than it may appear such as in the case of Chase Manhattan Bank in the USA being sued for asbestos liabilities because the bank owned the residual assets of a failed asbestos related commpany. So in the case of Manor perhaps one would not want to be left holding the bag if there is any reasonable suggestion of ‘blame’.

          1. Agree, nothing has been filed as yet, only talk so far, but that doesn’t mean the possibility is not there.
            I believe that if Manor closes the door the owners can still be held accountable.
            Also, in the first tragic case, Marussia was owned by Manaor, the 2012 car MRO1 Cosworth CA1012 2.4L V8, the technical report pointed to the car problems.
            In the second tragic case Manor 2014 MR03 FERRARI 059/3, the technical report pointed to the BBW failsafe system being found to have been incompatible with failsafe settings.

            1. I don’t think Manor/Marussia were the ones who wrote/manipulate the fialsafe code. That should be PU or their electronics supplier task, or maybe even the McLaren electronics, since their box suppose to control everything on the car.

          2. Apologies if I got it wrong. In my defence the ‘legal action’ was widely reported in the press over the summer of 2016 which just goes to prove that you can’t always believe what you read in the papers!

            1. @throwawayculture, You was actually correct/right in quoting what was reported in the majority of the British media on 26 May 2016 regarding the fatality of 2014.
              On May 28 2015 it was also reported that “family of driver involved in accident in testing in 2012 and death in 2013 “are considering compensation claims.
              But in both cases nothing has ever been heard again so far.
              SOME NOTES, re the reported claims for compensation for the driver death of 2014, it was the first time the deceased family of a driver have ever “REPORTEDLY” taken legal action the governing body and FOM, although a team has been sued before. the family of American driver Mark Donohue, who dead in practice for the 1975 Austrian grand prix, successfully won compensation from Penske and Goodyear.

              1. further, saying that no claim for compensation as yet has been made was based on the fact that the latest extensive due diligence carried out for prospective buyers by same lawyers names as Fitzpatrick used highlighted “A POSSIBLE CLAIM FOR COMPANSATION”.
                And that is why I said that I have learned to “sift” carefully of what is reported and that I have also learned not to like only that of what I would like to hear.

    3. Please note that this is a second hand account, but allegedly, in the discussion shortly after the Bianchi accident, one former driver admitted on Austrian TV that it was common practice for drivers to try to recover as much ground as they possibly could during the yellow flag periods. Presumably, Bianchi was trying to do just that. Virtual safety car rule was introduced to combat this.

      1. Only one race prior the tragic Suzuka event, in Singapore, it was Bainchi who sat his own fastest lap (up to that point) during the SC period. If I remember correctly he did it while unlapping himself, and went without penalty.
        So why on Earth would he slow down in Suzuka?

  3. Thanks for that interesting insight Joe. I know running F1 teams at the back of the grid is fraught with uncertainty, but was there really any long term plan from Fitzpatrick? I suppose the same scenario might reoccur with someone else picking up the team on the cheap, plugging a few holes for a season and then finding they can’t continue. Unsatisfactory.

  4. It looks to me that now days F1 teams involve so many areas, departments, tittles, Head of’s, etc… that many times high above people forget about “the basics” you need for any race team to run nice, smooth and smart.

    Manor didn’t have a chance to screw up. When you are in the bubble, you need to run lean, smart and be available to steer your small boat quickly, if possible quicker than the big boats ( you are lighter).
    There was no chance to screw at Manor. High above teams have “a better chance” to have continuously bad years, but they are so solid stablish that will take several years of bad results to put them down. (ie Mclaren)

    Braking into F1 from zero isn’t easy, they start from zero in 2015 even if doesn’t look like. F1 may look now not a fear game about price money, specially at the back positions.
    It never was easy, back in the 90’s there was people walking home after pre-qualifying morning with better lap time than a P20 in qualifying. (that was unfear!)

    Joe I fully agree about “One can blame everything on the fact that the prize money does not cover the costs of competing in F1, but if it did, there would always be teams simply cruising along, the owners being there just for the parties that surround F1 and not really caring about the racing”

    Once you commit to a Marathon or half Marathon don’t go as say “oh is too long, let’s change it”

    Forgetting “the basics” isn’t a good thing… now days drivers need to do Karting, Formula Renault, F3, GP2, before they are event consider a “superlicence” driver. Most of these drivers that they make it into F1 and many other drivers that cash run out just before their dream know for sure “the basics”.

    Maybe some high above people need to run through the driver ladder so “the basics” are not forgotten.

    Knowledge is something that you don’t by in the supermarket.

    Sad news about Manor

  5. > The owners were talking about giving the team away at this point and they were not willing to give indemnities, on the basis that when they acquired the team they took on the risks as well and did not see why new owners should not do the same, given that they would be getting a lot for nothing, and so should assume the risks as well.

    And to be honest, that seems fair enough!

    Thanks very much for the insight, Joe.

  6. Joe, how much would a new owner need to run the team for the next season. Think I could make a good go of it. Just need to know how much to take out my piggy bank (all joking aside would be very interesting to know)

    1. Sorry Joe, I did not realize no links were allowed in comments at all. I can’t edit my comment unfortunately, so I will have to repost it. I only included the link so everyone can see for themselves where I source my information from.

  7. Thanks for the analysis. One aspect that perhaps wasn’t the case with Manor specifically however was the notion that some team owners are there just for the parties that surround F1 – the articles itself states that Fitzpatrick hardly attended any races.

  8. “The only real difference is that the owners now have no claim on any shares and are out of the picture, unless they join forces with a bid to acquire the team from the administrator”

    Manor Grand Prix Ltd are still a going concern and hold the only remaining thing of value, the F1 entry, right?
    Just Racing has folded so the owners have no claim on that, but they must be still share holders of Manor Grand Prix Ltd?

    1. One wonders whether better credit terms might not have been available, had the actual entry been assigned to the debtor company, rather than neatly cleaved off, which no matter someone else said maybe common practise seems unfitting of a all of nothing new entry. I can appreciate established teams separating entry and operating organisations -they earned their credit.

  9. 🙂 seems that FIA handed out new entries back then at the right stars alignment – the rate of casualties 4 out of 4. well done

    1. My recollection (vague as it is) is that Max M was toting development freedom for new entrants alongside the RR framework, and I have to say I’m miffed nobody sued for implied terms…

      1. I guess if they couldn’t afford to keep the teams afloat, then the last thing they wanted to do was blow millions on a highly speculative lawsuit. Implied terms or not…

      2. Yes, I was surprised by that, too. I had the impression that the FIA canvassed for new entrants explicitly on that basis. I suspect that there was an enormous disclaimer in the formal contract, but even so…

  10. Joe,

    Do you think that Liberty would be in a position to implement some sort of ‘Team Ownership governance’ that indicated some controlling mechanisms around how teams should operate to try and ‘protect’ from unaware/unsuitable Owners.

    Loosing teams that are linked to the sport Liberty want to expand is not good news for them. I understand in the US that NFL, NASCAR etc. have conditions applied that need to be adhered to if they want to continue with being associated with the various leagues. This ensures that the sport is somewhat protected.

    Might this be a feature of contracts after 2020?

    1. That would be a “fit and proper persons” test, like they have in soccer. Probably that should come from FIA. FIA grant licenses.

      Such a test may be difficult when teams are owned by big companies with interests beyond F1.

      Team Principals are now FIA license holders and thus are subject to FIA (and can have their license revoked), but team principals are not necessarily owners

  11. Joe, is there any truth to the rumour that the FIA has, after in-depth examinations of the financial viability and technical credibility thereof, handed out entries to Maki, Kauhsen, Pacific and Andrea Moda for the upcoming season?

  12. Joe, I am rather curious now about the real value of an F1 entry. You have written many times before about the rules regarding name changes and prize monies, etc. but how long does an entry last? Is it something that has to be renewed each year like a race licence or is it for a specified number of years (e.g. x years from the original entry ‘competition’) so that the clock is ticking even on that remaining item of value? If no-one makes use of it this season does it expire? It also makes me wonder what happened to the Caterham entry – would that still exist somewhere or did it disappear with the total demise of the team?

  13. An absolute disgrace. One mans ego is more important than all those jobs. Me thinks he fancied himself as another Eddie Jordan… Though i can think of better idols! I wonder will sauber put all it’s resources into 2018. They’re guaranteed 10th place next year and the prize money and they could just write off first season of new rules.
    Joe, what about the 3 team entries? Can anyone put forward a bid or do the FIA have to formerly request new enteries first? Not that i can afford it, just wondering how likely it is that well get more teams back.

    1. While Manors current status is sad with employees left stranded, calling Fitzpatrick a disgrace is hardly warranted.

      He did give them another year, and no doubt his expectations were not realized. What I don’t understand is Manors inability to sign sponsorships of any significance?

      1. Ha, ok maybe not a disgrace but he was basically negligent. It just seems he put his ego first. He had a valid offer and wouldn’t let go. I just don’t get it, investing 30 million with what seems like no plan for tomorrow. Maybe he never heard about what happened to the 40 million teams!

    2. /Can anyone put forward a bid or do the FIA have to formerly request new enteries first? /

      You can always put your application, it’s not restricted. However, as a newbie you’d have to prove that you have money and resources to make the full season, and FIA can reject application at their discretion.

  14. I think this says a lot about why Lowden and Booth parted company with the team. And why the various bids came to nothing too. I can’t see any of the bidders wanting to buy the team from receivership though. By that time it’ll be a long way from a going concern and well out of time to start the 2017 season.

  15. A year ago I opined here that the hiring of new staff looked like a “share ramp” – make it look good for sale when no actual money in the coffers. You disagreed with me at the time, but it seems from your narrative now that perhaps that was very much what was going on – a roll of the dice in hopes of a decent return.

    And, yes, I know even a broken clock is right twice a day 🙂

  16. Re the last paragraph of this article.

    I would rather have the odd team owner swanning around having parties while his team of people – who are invariably racers – are able to compete as best they can with the available resources, whilst having job security.

    If only ten teams get significant prize money, there will only ever be ten teams. F1 is better with more than that.

    I hope Liberty offers prize money to the top thirteen teams.

  17. I can remember the days when there was start money and a canny small team could string together a season out of that. But then there were second level F1 races (I have been around the Cornish F1 course!). Perhaps a 2 Division F1 could be created with the lowest GP team dropping down and the best non-GP F1 team stepping up? A training ground for teams and circuits.

    I am pleased with Liberty’s noises on budget caps. It would let the teams (and it is a team sport) compete on cleverness not just richness. Of course the best engineers will gravitate to the best teams as do drivers, but they too are being chased by new young clever engineers.

  18. Is it just me that thinks that Manor’s 2017 wind tunnel model looks fantastic in that farewell picture that’s doing the rounds?

    Not just the proportions, but also how tightly packaged it looks at the back, & how much detail there is in the aero. I’m completely untutored, so maybe I’m barking up the wrong tree, but it looks like a really nice piece of work. And did I see that they had Nicholas Tombazis as head of aero? I think it is a real loss to F1 that we won’t see the car race, in the same way that we will never know how good the final Toyota F1 design would have been.

    And I’m wondering as well if there’s anyone at Sauber or Dallara or Renault looking at it and wondering if Manor might not have done a better job than they had. Hulkenburg’s reported comments that the RS17 is simulating somewhere in the same ballpark for downforce as RBR and Mercedes were at in 2016 does -not- soubd promising to me…

  19. Thanks for the insight Joe. It mystifies me that the pinnacle of motorsport (which banks large cheques for its ownership group) has so many teams that eventually fall into financial hardship and fail. What message does that send to potential sponsors? How does that show that F1 is worth getting involved in for any manufacturer or wealthy individual when new teams seemingly can’t compete and close the gap in any meaningful way to the frontrunners?

    1. I think it’s important in this moment try to help the team. Do you think it could be possible the crowdfunding as happened for caterham? It’s a waste of a project and its a shame for the manner used by Fitzpatrick….I can confirm the employers did the redundancy process yesterday, hoping for the redundancy (for many less than two weeks) and the notice period….but without money…and they need now!

Leave a comment