F1 Winter Break
2017
Time’s up – lack of buyer means Manor F1 team will close ahead of 2017 season
News
Manor F1
Posted By: Editor   |  27 Jan 2017   |  5:16 pm GMT  |  90 comments

Formula 1 will have just 20 cars on the grid this season after administrators attempting to find a buyer for the Manor Formula 1 team said that time has run out and the squad will now close for good.

Just Racing Services Ltd, the company that operated the team that was owned by energy businessman Sean Fitzpatrick, went into administration earlier this month after Manor finished 11th the 2016 world championship.

Manor’s workforce of 212 was sent home from work today, having been paid up to the end of January, after FRP Advisory, the administrators searching for a buyer, announced that the team would cease trading. All but a few staff members are expected to be made redundant by the end of the month.

The prize money they were due to receive during 2017 will now be shared among the remaining 10 F1 teams, adding a million or so more to the coffers of each. The failure to retain 10th place in the championship that they held from the Austrian GP in July until Felipe Nasr broke their hearts with a run to 9th in Brazil ultimately led to their downfall.

XPB.cc Pascal Wehrlein

Manor Grand Prix Racing, the entity that owns the team’s rights to enter F1 and which goes back to the John Booth and Graeme Lowdon era, is not in administration.

An official statement issued by FRP Advisory today said: “During recent months, the senior management team have worked tirelessly to bring new investment to the team to secure its long-term future, but regrettably were unable to do so within the time available and were left with no alternative but to place JRSL into administration to protect the best interests of the underlying businesses and in order to continue a search for a buyer.

“Since their appointment earlier this month the joint administrators at FRP Advisory have continued to work, with the support of senior management, to try and secure new investment into the business resulting in negotiations with a number of interested parties. During that period funding was secured to ensure payment of all staff salaries until 31 January 2017.

Manor F1

“Regrettably since the appointment of administrators no investment has been secured in the limited time available to continue the group in its present form.
“With no sustainable operational or financial structure in place to maintain the group as a going concern, the joint administrators have now ceased trading JRSL and unfortunately have had to send all staff home from work today Friday 27 January.

“While all 212 staff have been paid up to Tuesday 31 January, all but a small handful of staff are expected be made redundant by the end of January.”

The British team, which joined the F1 grid as Virgin Racing alongside Caterham (then Lotus Racing) and HRT back in 2010, nearly collapsed during the off-season of 2014-2015 but was saved from closure by Fitzpatrick’s takeover at the start of the 2015 season. HRT and Caterham went to the wall too.

Virgin Racing 2010

But after it missed out on around $15m in prize money when Sauber pipped it to tenth place in the 2016 constructors’ championship, Manor’s future heading intp 2017 did not look good.

The team had been on the look out for fresh investment for some time and Fitzpatrick told the media at the 2016 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix that it had “agreed terms” with an investor, but that deal failed to materialise.

With FRP Advisory ending its search for new owners for the Banbury-based team – known as Maurssia between 2012 and 2015 – F1 will be left with ten teams and a 20-car grid for the 2017 season.

Manor’s F1 record

As Virgin, 2010-2011:

38 races
0 points

Jules Bianchi

As Marussia, 2012-2015:

73 races
2 points (Jules Bianchi, ninth place at the 2014 Monaco Grand Prix)

As Manor, 2016:

21 races
1 point (Pascal Wehrlein, tenth place at the 2016 Austrian Grand Prix)

What do you make of the news that the Manor team will close? Leave your thoughts in the comment section below or head over to the JA on F1 Facebook page for more discussion.

Featured News
Editor's Picks
Share This:
Posted by:
Category:

Add comment

E-mail is already registered on the site. Please use the login form or enter another.

You entered an incorrect username or password

Sorry, you must be logged in to post a comment.

90 comments

by Oldest
by Best by Newest by Oldest
1

As it says in the piece, the company that owns the entry is not in administration, so if a buyer aquired the entry, and the assets of the defunct racing team, they could still make the grid.

2

It is not the end of the road yet, although the operating company closed doors the F1 license holder company still stands, a buyer could still come and buy.

3

Look up in the sky! Its a bird! Its a plane! No its Super Bernie to the rescue?

Oh no hang on...sigh...it is just a bird ah heading south for the winter by the look of it.

4

Even if by some miracle that happened they'd still have to build the chassis, secure an engine supply, pass all the crash tests...it's just not going to happen Tim 😐

5

Random, it's technically possible. The Merc engine supply could continue and I believe there is provision in the rules for teams to miss three races in a season without incurring any penalty. Unlikely though.

6

To my knowledge teams are only allowed to miss a certain number of races per each Concorde agreement. Manor, or as it then was, Marussia, already used up their allocation in late 2014 after Japan. I may be wrong, though.

7

Louis, I had it in my head it was 3 per season, but I'm not sure. Looks unlikely to matter now though.

8

That's wishful thinking TimW! See my response below - all the other constructors want Manor F1 to get the grim reaper treatment as they will pocket over 3.3 Million Euros each! The raw, guttural, ruthless world of racing/capitalism/business has claimed another "slaughter"............

Thing is, you have to ask, is it better to have a small but high quality 20 car grid where every constructor has the possibility of a Top 6 finish at at least in a few races, or like the early 90s an over-saturated grid of 26 cars made up of over 50% of no hopers? Go back to 1989 and amazingly there were 39 cars attempting to qualify for 26 grid slots..............but was the quality better for it? It's a rhetorical question with no right or wrong answer, but it does make me think a small but high quality grid of closely matched competitors is probably for the best.

Also worth pointing out until exactly 30 years [1987], only a maximum of 20 cars were allowed to start in Monaco anyway!

9

But we don't have a field of 20 'quality' cars do we.
There are at best possibly four cars that might take a win with another team or two that need unreliability to achieve podiums.
I see little prospect of the status quo changing any time soon despite the brave talk of all the losing teams.

10

Just a thought: would Manor have been saved if the prized money was distributed to all starters in a race instead of just the first 10? Of course, the last guy would get way less than the winner, but at least all the team would get some of the money.

11

Gazboy, it is highly unlikely that the team could be saved, but it is possible. If they manage to save the team then it won't matter what the others want, the prize money will go to Manor.
I wonder if Liberty think that ten teams is easier to manage than 11? They made noises about helping the smaller teams, but there has been no response from them to Manor's plight. Perhaps they think that with one less mouth to feed they can prop up Sauber and Force India more easily.

12

Don't think so. Even if the administration team hash a buyout it's cars will be under performing perhaps even lapped again and again. They won't win anything and will probably loose out in payments even with Brawn saying he would prefer a fairer distribution of funds from F1.
Time to stop flogging a dead donkey.
Manor is dead and will remain buried.

13

Bk Flamer, highly likely that they go under, but the 2017 car was underway before Fitzpatrick pulled the plug. I'm pretty sure that they could miss the first three races without penalty.

14

It does seem an odd time to pull out? From a business viabiility perspective you would think they wouldn't start 2017 development unless they could sustain it?

15

Nevertheless, the uncertainty and disruption to the employees is heartfelt. I wish them all the very best of luck.

16

That's a much more likely scenario from a commercial point of view.

17

Sad for all the staff that lost their job, but not a surprise and to be honest I won't miss them. I'd rather have another competitive team on the grid rather than Manor who if we're being honest were only there to make up the numbers and never had a hope of achieving very much at all. Hopefully in the next few years we'll see other teams entering formula 1 using the Haas model and spicing up the grid, not just making up the numbers

18

The staff will be picked by other teams in a variety of motor series. It is sad for the staff but they knew it was going downhill throughout the 2016 season. The team owner blaming a driver for the loss of his funds , is a low blow as that's racing ...you win some or you loose some. In Manors case losing is second nature.

19

Sad for the staff laid off and a pity as Manor, for the first time in its history, actually competed in 2016. However had it continued in 2017 it would probably have trailed the rest of the field by around 3 sec a lap again - so better they call it a day. The Haas model seems to be the only way to enter F1 and compete. There were rumblings about it not being a "constructor", but I would rather see competitive cars, however they are assembled, than "original constructors" who are nowhere near competitive and ultimately disappear after years of being nowhere near being truly competitive. Hopefully Haas can slowly build itself into a Team that truly keeps progressing.

20

Unfortunate. But, never in their whole tenure looked like, they had a plan.

21

Budget cap is a crap idea. BUT! Fair financial distribution is not.
I hope Liberty starts to amend this as soon as possible.

They can start by helping Manor.
I honestly believe they CAN make an agreement with teams to or solely organize some Reserve Fund or whatever to allow Manor to compete in 2017.
They paid billions, they can shed some 10 millions more. For the better of F1.

22

Did you see the headlines where Wolff says F1 is not broken?

I laughed and I laughed until a tear ran down my cheek.

23

Totally agree, he's an incredibly smart businessman though he just has not got a clue what it's like to run an independent team in this current economy.

24

In the grand scheme, Manor are not comparable to any of the great or even middling teams that were part of F1's fabric.
They were rubbish

25

𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗿𝗶𝘇𝗲 𝗺𝗼𝗻𝗲𝘆 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝘄𝗲𝗿𝗲 𝗱𝘂𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝗿𝗲𝗰𝗲𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗱𝘂𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴 2017 𝘄𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝗻𝗼𝘄 𝗯𝗲 𝘀𝗵𝗮𝗿𝗲𝗱 𝗮𝗺𝗼𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 10 𝗙1 𝘁𝗲𝗮𝗺𝘀, 𝗮𝗱𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮 𝗺𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝗿 𝘀𝗼 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗳𝗳𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗲𝗮𝗰𝗵.

The remaining constructors pocket 3.35 Million Euros each, as the 33.5 Million Euros Manor F1 earned from their Column 1 payments cannot be paid to an insolvent constructor, so the earnings pie is shared amongst the "survivors!" Capitalism and racing - dog eat dog world...........

Charles Darwin would have a wry smile - this racing business is his theory fleshed out! It is Darwinism, - survival of the fittest, and those best able to adapt to the financial jungle will be the one's who will survive - and it wasn't Manor. Just like Caterham, Hispania, Super Aguri, Arrows, Forti, Lola...........

26

I would have preferred to see all the money go to Sauber - It's not like most of the other teams will really miss a few mil, but for Sauber that would have made a big, big difference.

27

@ random...don't worry about sauber. Monisha will just hand out a few more contracts, take the money and away they'll go. Easy...

28

Yep, that did occur to me 🙂

29

Confused. With Liberty taking over, it feels like owning a team might actually be worth something, i.e. a seat at the table, almost part of the franchise (can't have a race without racers, can't have a convincing championship without a full grid). Hard to understand why there was no one willing to buy a 'functional' team for a small premium rather than for the administrator to see more value in auctioning off what assets the team has.

Perhaps the answer lies in the cost of running the team, no matter how small the upfront cost. I'm sure Ross is writing (has written) the case study as we speak.

30

It's bad enough that F1 is now a hybrid series. Now with Manor's demise we have a paltry 20 battery operated cars on the grid, with probably less than half of those capable of a win.

If you delete the back markers, it's maybe a 10 car series, on a good day.

So there's no doubt that we have a monumental disconnect between the hype and the reality.

Chase Carey and Co. will have a staggering chore trying to justify a plan for week-long race festivities that only leads to a grid that often has trouble getting out of its own way.

31

Craig, hasn't it always been like that?

32

A 6 car vacuum cleaner races on sterile circuits with 3 drivers of any note with massa driving around in first gear.Awesome

33

Exactly!!!

34

How simply this could be avoided - LM advance the prize money due in 2017…

35

So, none of the 3 teams that entered F1 based on a $40M budget-cap promise survived. What a surprise...

36

The result of Mad max and his magnificent moment of masochistic mindlessness trying to make mountains out of molehills.

37

And thisnk of the carnage in people's lives with being laid off etc, not to mention the money wasted

38

Toto Wolff says there is nothing broken.

“We mustn’t talk the sport down, as it is not broken."

Does Toto support a budget cap? Let me guess...that would be a....no?

39

Does Toto understand why it is so easy to talk F1 down?

If F1 was a dinner plate at a restaurant, it is not a small things like garnish or lack of pepper that's the issue. It is huge meat and potatoes stuff that is the issue, like actual fairness of the competition, like built in financial advantage, like allowing a Goliath like Mercedes to take on Manor and Sauber as if those two have anything in common. The meat and potatoes on this F1 plate suck! Just because it is served on an Formula 1 plate means nothing. We know it is fixed at worse, placed in the lap of 2 or 3 teams due to flaws that have been there since day 1 and have become gigantic in today's F1.

V10s...they would be awesome, but would simply be a better salad on this plate. The meat and potatoes would still suck. Send this plate back to the kitchen!

40

Sebee, are you saying that F1 is broken because a team went bust? How many times has F1 been "broken" before?

41

If [Mod], you would see that I am clearly, without any doubt saying that Formula 1 is broken because it is fundamentally an unfair competition, with favour toward few teams and financial inequality to ensure a set of predetermined outcomes only with about 3/4 of the grid having no shot at glory.

Mercedes is basically dominating PU era because of this, and it threatened to pull out when it couldn't do diddly squat in the V8 era.. Which is funny actually because the #1 top selling Mercedes AMG engine configuration is a V8! How telling that Mercedes is dominating an era of engines not found in their cars, not purchasable as a finished product by any customer anywhere on this planet. Why if I was hell bent on getting a Mercedes AMG hybrid car today, this afternoon, money in hand, I can't. Such a thing doesn't exist. V8? V12? I could take delivery tomorrow after brunch as soon as registration is completed. Mercedes domination of PU era Formula 1 is one of the funniest marketing bait-and-switch campaigns I have ever seen. I've seen TV Infomercials that are more honest! I mean, when Ron Popeil sprays his hair with black hair filler, I does look like he has more hair!

42

Same old stuff Sebee, f1 is going to pot, and it's all Mercedes fault! Mercedes sell highbrids, they sell turbo charged cars, they are moving away from larger capacity naturally aspirated engines, to smaller capacity turbos, this is what they wanted reflected in their F1 effort. The F1 programme exists to promote the entire Mercedes range, not just the AMG part. I notice you are still avoiding any mention of Renault in your criticism of the PUs introduction, I am still to read any account of those negotiations with the FIA that didn't have Renault as the prime mover in the PU direction, but you still blame Merc for everything! Did Merc do diddly squat in the V8 era? They entered as a full constructor late, (having won championships as a V8 engine supplier) and only won four races, but there is no reason to suspect that they wouldn't have continued their upward trajectory if the V8s had remained.
Financial inequality? Hasn't this always been a part of F1? Why is it only broken now? Ferrari used to always spend the most, if they don't now it's because they decide not to, their F1 programme is at or very close to being in profit, so if they are slower than Mercedes because they didn't spend enough, then that is their fault isn't it?

43

How many rules were passed to save money? Why this PUs saved teams money over V8s by doubling or tripling the supply contract costs, while slowing the cars down.

Maybe like the 918 and P1, which can only do one hot lap, that's what these PUs have been doing in quali? Then in GP going 5s per lap slower. All while costing triple cost. Brilliant!

....oh oh..but wait! They save 50KG of fuel...apparently. It is all worth it!

44

Sebee, same old stuff. F1 is expensive, always has been, some make it, some don't. I'm still waiting for you to come up with a link to just one expert written article that blames the qualifying to race pace discrepancy to anything other than the need to save the tyres from overheating due to the deliberately built in over sensitivity to thermal degradation.
The Pus were brought in because Renault and Mercedes wanted their F1 engines to reflect their road car units and threatened to withdraw if they weren't. Still avoiding this issue like the plague I note....

45

Hey, can you guys tells me which rule(s) passed to save money in F1 say in the last decade or since this 40M cap new teams thing, actually resulted in lower costs? I'd like to have a list on my mind.

46

Sebee, how about you come up with a list of all the teams that went bust back in "the good old days" first.

47

You mean in the day when there were so many team and there had to be pre-qualifying? When there were more cars than could fit on the grid?

My list first please. Then we'll get to your list. Let's not be rude, address the request on FIFO basis.

48

Sebee, pre qualifying was an eighties thing, according to you "the good old days" means the V10 era, no pre qualifying in those days, but we did have teams going to the wall.
Rule changes in F1 designed to cut costs? There hasn't been that many, cutting testing was something the smaller teams wanted as it would save them money, no reason to believe this didn't happen. Banning refuelling clearly saves on freight costs, banning spare cars must have done the same, I'm struggling to think of anymore. Your turn.

49

But, all 3 owners must be accountable for this mess and carnage, aren't they James!?
They as businessmen should have known perfectly that F1 is beyond their "tiny pocket", only big car manufacturers (and Red Bull) can afford it, even such giants as Toyota, BMW, Honda pulled out recently. I wonder how Sauber still breathing...
It's terrible for people affected but very good not to watch again leading cars overlapping those backmarkers within first 10 laps.

50

The legacy of Mr Ecclestone, what a week.

51

@ ticketboo...not bernie....Max.

52

Yes James, but F1 is a microcosm of the real world; the winners thrive, and those that do not have a sustainable business die; the real "victims" are the employees and unpaid suppliers, some of whom may also have to lay staff of as a consequence. It may seem unjust, but that is capitalism for you.

Manor was always a gamble once the budget cap idea was off the table, and it did well to outlast the other three, but honestly the writing was on the wall for some time: Frankly I'm astonished that their survival was predicated on the "lost" $15m ... it shows what a fine line they were treading.

53

The money that most likely all went to Bernie!

54

Just one more example of dozens and dozens of the need for more equitable distribution of prize money. One one hand they didn't perform well enough to warrant it under the current structure, but on the other hand from the perspective of entertainment and to some degree competition (they had some bright moments) they seem deserving of some sort of financial reward for their participation.

Regardless off how you saw Virgin/Marussia/Manor, fun to root for underdogs, or worthless back markers, one less team in F1 is never a good thing.

55

The Irony of Nasr scoring points in Brazil and out of a the only two seats left on the grid. Karma.
As mentioned above..... surely a Team is now worth having? Or is 2020 the next time we will see an increase in grid numbers?. Bernies final parting shot to F1.

56

more irony, he didnt survive, despite surviving Sauber.

57

Yep, the millions that he's delivered to Sauber in that one event wasn't enough to earn him the respect or loyalty of the team - but then look at the behaviour of Sauber under current Team Principal at the outset of last season and should say enough...

58

I know....Nasr unknowingly shot his own foot. The racing team which has the FIA entry is worth something. But it's nearly impossible to run this year without passing crash tests and modifying the car to run 2017 regs is a waste when resources can be put into returning to the grid 2018 onwards. Is their FIA entry valid for the subsequent years? I think not.

The infrastructure however would be worth something to a future privateer team if they plan on becoming competitive.

Are you listening Ford? With your European arm making a profit of $1.2bn....there's future glory to be had here.

59

Why blame bernie, it was the teams who went against mosley and bernie for not having a budget cap. The cap makes total sense but not to these foolish big teams who can spend over a million dollar for a wheel nut, that's how crazy F1 has become these days!

60

What a conundrum !!!
F1 min line-up is 20 cars.
So I guess F1G has to fill the grid w/ 2017 spec tires test mules from Ferrari/Mercedes/RBR.
...
If I recall it correctly, even if the team rights holder has a new buyer, the F1G has to approve it to be able to compete.
Anyway, until 2020 when the Concorde "Agreement" expires Manor is a bad business in a structural financial way.

61

In a circus, every actor should earn enough to make a living. Formula-1, even though it is an exclusive small circus of about a dozen high tech artists (and they won't have everyone join this club), earns hundreds of millions of dollars each year, but fails to pay their members enough, so a smaller team can survive. It's a shame. The small teams are as much part of the show as the large ones. Every team that makes it into F1 and makes the 107% on a regular basis should earn enough money to keep this up. This is, simply put, Bernie's fault. A proper concorde agreement could have been possible, but he tried to play divide an conquer with the manufacturers. And there won't be any change before 2020.

62

Sorry to read this. 200+ out of work due to F1's bizarre prize money allocation system is no joke...and also sorry as the Manor was the best looking paint job on the grid, in a time of paint-work conservatism and propensity for primary colours and black. Shame.

63

So in total they only gained 3 points !!!!!
Says alot about the team.
It's pointless to be a team scrubbing the rubber for other teams to do the fast qualifying times in Q1. No doubt another lower team will be next in line for the chop. Sad but that's racing.

64

Thank you guys for the serious covering of this story. The news at Autosport.com was that they had glimpsed an image of an 2017 F1 car in a Manor "farewell" picture. The focus was not the demise of a F1 team, but a picture of a scale model the design team was modeling for the wind tunnel. I'm outraged.

65

Liberty Media have got to get a grip on this before we're down to 16 or 14 cars. I blame Bernard Charles Ecclestone for allowing, even encouraging the present situation to arise on his watch.

There have got to be enough 'entry level' teams in F1 to allow top drivers from the feeder series, plus engineers, mechanics, technicians, etc., to learn their trade on the job.

66

I don't agree with you. As mark webber said, 'F1 is not a finishing school' and i tend to agree. They, in a manor of speaking ,were never going to make it with the business model they had. The rules were the rules before they signed up. No excuse for making a hash out of it.

67

If you look at the bigger picture you will know that the lower order teams have been pleading for fairer distribution of income for ages. Not just the HRT's, Caterhams and now Manor, but the likes of Sauber and Force india, despite the latter's recent good form. Are you suggesting that they should go off and do something else, leaving us with 16 cars? It's been said before, but would the likes of Mercedes, Red Bull, Ferrari and McLaren be ready, willing and able to run three cars to fill the gaps? I'm sure Liberty Media don't want dwindling grids any more than they do struggling teams, so the answer is redistribute the income.

68

Even if you gave the small teams some extra cash to enter what difference would that make? The bigger teams would still spend the same or more! What you need to take into account is the relativity and expertise levels between teams. If the grid was reduced to sixteen cars would the racing be any worse? No, it would possibly be better as there would be no distraction and impediments placed on the best cars to race unimpeded. What F1 needs is twelve teams with the necessary finances to compete without going bust by expecting to crash the winning party as part of their contingency plan. Either that or the top teams enter three cars. At least the latter plan would allow more competition between drivers and teams. It would also allow new drivers a better platform upon which to launch their careers

69

Any rumors of Mercedes/Ferrari/Red Bull being asked to field a 3 car team like there were a couple of years ago when Manor were last circling the drain? Or does a 20 car field meet all the current circuit hosting agreements now?

70

Mosley promised 3 teams that they could enter F1 and survive because he was going to bring in spending limits. It never happened. I'm surprised no one chased him for for a handout. Mosley, a tax exile, can easily afford it, apparently he's worth £100 million. I wonder where that came from ??

71

@ roger k...and if anyone believed him without sighting a confirmed agreement that budget caps were in place then they are very poor businessmen.

72

Sad to hear about this, although it was only a matter of time till someone fell from the grid in the current status quo in F1, either them or Sauber were the next in line for an early exit, it still hurts to see this team close.
Unfortunately they didn't survive until new rules are implemented for the series, hopefully after that point life will be a bit easier for the small teams, as they are very much needed on the grid, not some decorum for big teams battles.

73

It's a shame we keep Sauber at the expense of Manor. At least Monor had the underdog spirit and, to me, seemed like a team that given a fair chance could have achieved more.
Unlike Sauber who seem content with simply turning up and have no great drive or desire to compete with the other teams on the grid.
I was hoping we might see Ron Dennis pick up the team, but maybe too much of a challenge/long term project at Ron's time of life.
Hopefully the other teams can pick up the staff with the extra $$ they will now receive.

74

in reality was it really ever going to be otherwise? These backmarker teams are to all extents 'invisible' on the day and do nothing to add to the racing apart from getting in the way of faster cars. Cold reality. Some people support them as an 'F1 incubator' . I don't quite see it like that. I don't believe that there is any sense in forming a team and racing if the team does not have adequate funding locked away for whatever period is deemed necessary for the team to be financially secure. It is fantasy to expect that the funding model will change prior to 2020 so why play the "victim'. Yes, it is not nice to be unemployed but all the manor teams employees must have known that they were on shaky ground prior to signing on! if not then that is not too clever. The series would be better served by allowing three car teams or single car teams as both of these ideas have merit. The top teams could easily afford a third car and the back end could probably function must easier if they only had to fund one car/driver. Their needs to be flexibilty if the grids are to be grown with new entries.

75

Bernie should buy this team and run it as Ecclestone, a new legend.

76

they should take Haryanto's at mid season... it was not all but something...

77

Why wouldn't the prize money be part of the financial settlement of debtors? I personally think that $10M to them os a better use of funds than giving it to many teams that don't need it (Merc, Ferrari, RBR...). Surely this is the right thing to do and continues to send the right message of how a red hot go at F1, and you'll be rewarded for effort (even if under a skewed system).

78

They came into an f1 championship on the understanding that the budget needed would be £40m. This would then give them a chance to be competitive.

As is the norm with F1. Don't believe any of it until it actually happens. They did well to last so long against all of the odds.

Thoughts go to all of the staff.

79

@ Mike D...then obviously their understanding was a 'misunderstanding'. There was never ever any budget cap.

80

My first thought is for the people involved, the stress and upheaval of being laid off and the fallout for their loved ones and families. These must be very difficult times.

Just because a team is running at the back of the grid doesn't mean they work less hard, or do a worse job then the front running teams. They mainly lack the budget to test and develop and for me this is no reason to exclude them by means of financial hancuffs. There appears to be plenty of money to go round.

From a sporting point of view I believe F1 needs small teams. It has been great to see the strides made in professionalism and performance for the minnows of F1 over the years. The emotion of watching Jules's 9th place in Monaco was appreciated by the majority of F1 fans as a win for the team.

And don't forget where many aspiring young drivers get there first spell in the goldfish bowl.

Liberty - sort this out! Ferrari continuing to receive $70m for turning up seems wildly unfair whilst peoples jobs and livelihoods are disappearing, development channels are being closed and fans are being robbed of the chance to see another Monaco '14... Minardi leading in Portugal, (Alonso and Webber started with Minardi)

David and Goliath may be a fable but these results actually occurred. For F1 to let the possibility go is a travesty.

81

I really did hope that Mercedes would save this outfit. With the successful Red Bull / Toro Rosso model and Ferrari developing a strong relationship with Haas, Mercedes investing in a team just down the road from Brackley seemed like a great opportunity.

82

Sad day! Because F1 needs more teams in the sport. 12 teams (24 cars) would be perfect!

83

you would think that an investor would have come forward now we have the brave new world of liberty f1 from the usa.
Maybe trump and his me and the usa first rhetoric has scared off say anyone from 85% of the world.

84

We won't miss them because we don't need another un-competitive team out there... that's some of the stupid things being written about Manor ceasing operation. By that measure, everyone but Mercedes should retire. I for one will miss them. Sadly, they are another victim of the sham that Bernie created to institutionalize the payments to Ferrari, Mercedes, RBR, and Williams... the rest get screwed. Under new administration (LMG) I expect seeing this sort of thing become a think of the past.

85

150,000 each

86

I am sorry to see Manor F1 out of F1. The problem is they could not contribute much to F1 as they did not have the budget. How about divide the F1 funds equally between the teams? It doesn’t make sense to give more money to larger and richer teams. How are the smaller teams going to catch up? The whole concept is wrong.

87

I may be wrong, but I thought an off the shelf F1 team would have been quite attractive to an investor prepared to gamble on running the team with a limited budget in the hope that Liberty are more generous with their distribution of income in the years to come.

88

Just proves that the "prize money" sharing is up the creek. The established teams, who have plenty of money, get the lion's share of the money. Racing is only made possible by having a grid made up of potential winners and others they can beat. More needs to be done to help new teams. No new team has come into F1 and become firmly established for an awful long time. Many have tried and failed. Haas is looking like making a success of it but they have a lot of backing from Ferrari.

89

Sad news. It was probably going to be Sauber or Manor, I fail to see how both would have been able to make it. Very sad, they were making good progress.

90

Sauber was bought last year by an investment company

Top Tags
SEARCH News
JA ON F1 In association with...
Multi award winning Formula One photographer
Multi award winning Formula One photographer

Sign up to receive the latest F1 News & Updates direct to your inbox

You have Successfully Subscribed!