What now for Manor?

[S griffin]

Originally Posted by Nikki Katz

This is sad, especially after such a good season, but predictable. I hope that the new f1 management will be able to do a little more to help in the future, or at least distribute the funds more evenly, it's not fair that manor came away from their season with nothing. Really I'd like to see 24 - 26 cars.

+1

[djinvicta]

Originally Posted by Moneyseeker

The entry is held by another company not in administration, but there is no buyer with the current liabilities. Maybe the potential 'buyer' is waiting for it to become available minus the liabilities and then buy the remains from the receiver and then the entry from the company still in business?

How true this is...watch the Phoenix rise.
Shame about the little creditors that will not get paid a penny though..

[Paradise City]

I hope the staff can make alternative arrangements. I hope some fresh blood can be arranged in due course with a measured relaxation in barriers to entry yet with auditing controls producing new teams that have a reasonable chance at sustainability.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Moneyseeker

The entry is held by another company not in administration, but there is no buyer with the current liabilities. Maybe the potential 'buyer' is waiting for it to become available minus the liabilities and then buy the remains from the receiver and then the entry from the company still in business?

Who holds the entry?

[djinvicta]

Tongue in cheek...maybe again...Booth and Associates..

[bella]

believe it's manor grand prix racing that hold the entry, which is owned by fitzpatrick and his two colleagues.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by bella

believe it's manor grand prix racing that hold the entry, which is owned by fitzpatrick and his two colleagues.

I thought the parent company was Manor Grand Prix Racing Limited and it is they who have gone into administration, so how can they still hold the entry after this season is over?

[Richard C]

This discussion triggers deja vu for me. Didn't we see a similar situation with this team previously (or maybe it was Caterham) in which one legal entity holds the entry and maybe even the IP and it remained solvent, while another entity runs the race operations, has the staff, etc but also all the expenditures and it is the one that was insolvent. I believe it was the same when the sports car maker Lola went under a few years ago. The IP (and name) was held by a separate entity. All structured to split the valuable assets from those that generate the finance liabilities and risk.

Richard

[bella]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

I thought the parent company was Manor Grand Prix Racing Limited and it is they who have gone into administration, so how can they still hold the entry after this season is over?

richard is correct, iirc. i was under the impression that it was just racing ltd that had gone into administration, which is the company responsible for delivering the f1 team. that way the f1 entry and any prize money due is safe - if a team goes into receivership and takes the f1 entry with it then it gets very messy to sell the team and any prize money due as a going concern.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

This discussion triggers deja vu for me. Didn't we see a similar situation with this team previously (or maybe it was Caterham) in which one legal entity holds the entry and maybe even the IP and it remained solvent, while another entity runs the race operations, has the staff, etc but also all the expenditures and it is the one that was insolvent. I believe it was the same when the sports car maker Lola went under a few years ago. The IP (and name) was held by a separate entity. All structured to split the valuable assets from those that generate the finance liabilities and risk.

Richard

I thought the business with Caterham was to do with who owned the Lotus name.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by bella

richard is correct, iirc. i was under the impression that it was just racing ltd that had gone into administration, which is the company responsible for delivering the f1 team. that way the f1 entry and any prize money due is safe - if a team goes into receivership and takes the f1 entry with it then it gets very messy to sell the team and any prize money due as a going concern.

So Manor Racing MRT still have the entry.

[gary396]

I think Joe Saward mentioned that Just Racing Ltd is the holding company with two limited company subsidiaries. Those being the operational company called Just Racing Services Ltd but the other company Manor Grand Prix Racing Ltd owns the F1 entry. I'm sure that's what he said.

Credit: Joe Saward

[S griffin]

So if they get a budget for 2018, could that mean they wouldn't need to re-enter?

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by gary396

I think Joe Saward mentioned that Just Racing Ltd is the holding company with two limited company subsidiaries. Those being the operational company called Just Racing Services Ltd but the other company Manor Grand Prix Racing Ltd owns the F1 entry. I'm sure that's what he said.

Credit: Joe Saward

Paragraphs 2 and 3 of this blog by Joe Saward explains the situation.

https://joesaward.wordpress.com/2017...ent-for-manor/

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

This discussion triggers deja vu for me....

total deja vu....im probably on the cynical side of this but these corporate structures are designed this way on purpose and often that purposes is to allow the owners' protection against their liabilities and this practice has become all too common in sports.

sports teams should have more linear and transparent ownership structures...if for no other reason then i just want to know who im cheering for.

[bella]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

total deja vu....im probably on the cynical side of this but these corporate structures are designed this way on purpose and often that purposes is to allow the owners' protection against their liabilities and this practice has become all too common in sports.

sports teams should have more linear and transparent ownership structures...if for no other reason then i just want to know who im cheering for.

i think it's sad for f1 that new teams are set up this way, it's a necessity now. it shows just how unsustainable being involved in the sport is.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by bella

i think it's sad for f1 that new teams are set up this way, it's a necessity now. it shows just how unsustainable being involved in the sport is.

Hopefully sustainability will be something Liberty will look into.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by bella

i think it's sad for f1 that new teams are set up this way, it's a necessity now. it shows just how unsustainable being involved in the sport is.

F1 team?

Anything you want you pay for in advance!

Bernie 101.

[GTRMagic]

Originally Posted by bella

i think it's sad for f1 that new teams are set up this way, it's a necessity now. it shows just how unsustainable being involved in the sport is.

A team that exists without substantial commercial sponsorship, relying on the patronage of its owners, isn't likely to survive

We saw it with Marussia Mk1, Caterham, Simtek and how many others?

[tigas]

Originally Posted by wnut

F1 team?

Anything you want you pay for in advance!

Bernie 101.

Well, it's starting to be "Carbon Fiber Triangle 101". The amount of uncollected debts Caterham and Marussia/Manor (twice!) left on the books of every specialist machinist and builder in that area may have just closed a lot of them.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if the next new F1 team would be forced to pay everything in advance.

[billy bleach]

Originally Posted by tigas

Well, it's starting to be "Carbon Fiber Triangle 101". The amount of uncollected debts Caterham and Marussia/Manor (twice!) left on the books of every specialist machinist and builder in that area may have just closed a lot of them.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if the next new F1 team would be forced to pay everything in advance.

Any business who extended Manor credit can either afford it or need to have a good talk with themselves! Why on earth would you?

[bella]

yeah, exactly. some people seem to suspend any common sense when it comes to motorsport payments. obviously it's only fair to be understanding when it comes to cashflow in areas of business where there isn't a steady stream of cash but if you're getting the same excuse repeatedly, there's a decent chance you're being lied to...

[old man]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

total deja vu....im probably on the cynical side of this but these corporate structures are designed this way on purpose and often that purposes is to allow the owners' protection against their liabilities and this practice has become all too common in sports

The clue is in the term "Limited Liability Company". It is up to the suppliers to ensure the credit of a Ltd company is good.

Certainly in the UK the authorities can come down hard on those who misuse the facility, however some would say this does not happen enough.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by old man

The clue is in the term "Limited Liability Company". It is up to the suppliers to ensure the credit of a Ltd company is good.

Certainly in the UK the authorities can come down hard on those who misuse the facility, however some would say this does not happen enough.

indeed this is a normal business practice and a pretty common corporate structure that a lot of business use.

and thats fine for the business world, but i do think something changes when that business logic is applied to sporting organizations particularity in respect to transparency and accountability.

rather in motorsports, if one fails to pay one's suppliers does that in effect amount to cheating on track? does one need to own their equipment with clear and direct title before competing?

i suspect that things like engines are leased so for sure there are exceptions to my question...but i was asking more as 'a questioning of the sports ethical code' as opposed to looking to create a new rule or something.

[billy bleach]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

indeed this is a normal business practice and a pretty common corporate structure that a lot of business use.

and thats fine for the business world, but i do think something changes when that business logic is applied to sporting organizations particularity in respect to transparency and accountability.

rather in motorsports, if one fails to pay one's suppliers does that in effect amount to cheating on track? does one need to own their equipment with clear and direct title before competing?

i suspect that things like engines are leased so for sure there are exceptions to my question...but i was asking more as 'a questioning of the sports ethical code' as opposed to looking to create a new rule or something.

Nothing new in the world. A few years back a junior formula team started a major R@D programme, wind tunnel testing and all, ran loads of news tyres, never repaired bodywork - always new and went bankrupt at the end of it all - by then their domination had wiped out several of the opposition and unlTimothy the Championship. ...