Discussion
I'm currently watching episode 3 of 'drive to survive', going behind the scenes at Williams. It's quite interesting but also a tough watch. It gives the impression they're stuck inside their own nightmare and have accepted the situation rather than battle.
As an example, at one point ahead of the Monaco GP Claire says their best chance of getting points is to hope for a pile up at turn one with just her cars getting through. "That's the dream" apparently.
I thought winning on merit was the dream!!
Also lots of complaining about money whilst making no reference to the fact teams with a smaller budget are out on track giving them a good spanking.
If you have Netflix, it's really worth watching though. I'm surprised at the level of access the show has.
As an example, at one point ahead of the Monaco GP Claire says their best chance of getting points is to hope for a pile up at turn one with just her cars getting through. "That's the dream" apparently.
I thought winning on merit was the dream!!
Also lots of complaining about money whilst making no reference to the fact teams with a smaller budget are out on track giving them a good spanking.
If you have Netflix, it's really worth watching though. I'm surprised at the level of access the show has.
TheDeuce said:
I'm currently watching episode 3 of 'drive to survive', going behind the scenes at Williams. It's quite interesting but also a tough watch. It gives the impression they're stuck inside their own nightmare and have accepted the situation rather than battle.
As an example, at one point ahead of the Monaco GP Claire says their best chance of getting points is to hope for a pile up at turn one with just her cars getting through. "That's the dream" apparently.
I thought winning on merit was the dream!!
Also lots of complaining about money whilst making no reference to the fact teams with a smaller budget are out on track giving them a good spanking.
If you have Netflix, it's really worth watching though. I'm surprised at the level of access the show has.
Out of interest, do we know that other teams *really* have smaller budgets?As an example, at one point ahead of the Monaco GP Claire says their best chance of getting points is to hope for a pile up at turn one with just her cars getting through. "That's the dream" apparently.
I thought winning on merit was the dream!!
Also lots of complaining about money whilst making no reference to the fact teams with a smaller budget are out on track giving them a good spanking.
If you have Netflix, it's really worth watching though. I'm surprised at the level of access the show has.
There seems to me some lack of clarity around who pays for what. Does every team take on to its own books all the money that is paid out? What about situations in which sponsors pay drivers directly, say? What about where teams' budgets are being propped up by loans from a sponsor / parent?
We can all look at financial reports, but does anyone really have a handle on the overall picture?
Fundoreen said:
davidd said:
This article by Peter Windsor is well worth a read.
https://www.omologatowatches.com/blog/racers-edge-...
Well done. Makes a change from all the biased speculation we mostly see here. They seem a team full of the wrong people.https://www.omologatowatches.com/blog/racers-edge-...
For all we know Paddy decided to step away and let them stew.
Somethings that surprised me are that
Frank is not even on the board
Paddy was not a shareholder, though at the time of his appointment, much was made about him taking a slice of the action.
Claire is on the board, but not a shareholder in her own right.
£7million of their profit came from a one-off land sale.
They owed the bank £10million, down from £25million debt in 2016
The heritage cars are on the books for £20million, but it would be interesting to see what they would fetch at auction.
But the overriding impression that the real power behind the business is in the hands of Nick Rose, Mike O’Driscol, Doug Lefferty and Mark Biddle. I think these are who Pete Windsor is blaming for the failures - they understand finance, but not how to be successful in F1.
My guess is that they gave Paddy the free reign to produce a winning car, but not the resources. The other stuff about staff working to rule, sacking other executive staff etc becomes almost plausible.
Brad Hollinger seems more interested in the Advanced Engineering part of the company
skwdenyer said:
Out of interest, do we know that other teams *really* have smaller budgets?
There seems to me some lack of clarity around who pays for what. Does every team take on to its own books all the money that is paid out? What about situations in which sponsors pay drivers directly, say? What about where teams' budgets are being propped up by loans from a sponsor / parent?
We can all look at financial reports, but does anyone really have a handle on the overall picture?
It depends where in the world the team is based as to how accurate the information is. Some of it is partly guesstimated. And yes, if a driver is paid directly by a sponsor in lieu of 'salary' that removes that cost from the teams books. But nonetheless, unless the figures are massively out, Toro Rosso, Force India (whatever their latest name is this week) and Haas all appear to have lower overall revenues. I think even with potential inaccuracies the point still stands, as Williams isn't bringing the fight to any one of those teams.There seems to me some lack of clarity around who pays for what. Does every team take on to its own books all the money that is paid out? What about situations in which sponsors pay drivers directly, say? What about where teams' budgets are being propped up by loans from a sponsor / parent?
We can all look at financial reports, but does anyone really have a handle on the overall picture?
They are by any measure not getting performance relative to their revenue. Force India and Haas in particular, both claimed around 100 points last year (albeit half of Force India's were voided) compared to Williams 7 points...
The figures I look at were compiled by Auto Bild, but better laid out here: http://scuderiafans.com/budgets-for-the-formula-1-...
rdjohn said:
Following yesterday’s sad news, I searched for William’s latest financial report. 2018 is due at the end of April, so we only have 2017 to look at at - https://az732437.vo.msecnd.net/-/media/williamsf1/...
They must have had a good year then - highest paid director's remuneration went from £1.3m in 2016 to £3.8m in 2017...Dr Jekyll said:
TheDeuce said:
I worry that might very well be true. I'm sure she's a nice enough and very capable person, but even Claire herself seems to question why she's really ended up with the role she has.
.
She comes across as very sensible and well balanced. While those who succeed in F1 tend to be obsessional egomaniacs..
rdjohn said:
Fundoreen said:
davidd said:
This article by Peter Windsor is well worth a read.
https://www.omologatowatches.com/blog/racers-edge-...
Well done. Makes a change from all the biased speculation we mostly see here. They seem a team full of the wrong people.https://www.omologatowatches.com/blog/racers-edge-...
For all we know Paddy decided to step away and let them stew.
Somethings that surprised me are that
Frank is not even on the board
Paddy was not a shareholder, though at the time of his appointment, much was made about him taking a slice of the action.
Claire is on the board, but not a shareholder in her own right.
£7million of their profit came from a one-off land sale.
They owed the bank £10million, down from £25million debt in 2016
The heritage cars are on the books for £20million, but it would be interesting to see what they would fetch at auction.
But the overriding impression that the real power behind the business is in the hands of Nick Rose, Mike O’Driscol, Doug Lefferty and Mark Biddle. I think these are who Pete Windsor is blaming for the failures - they understand finance, but not how to be successful in F1.
My guess is that they gave Paddy the free reign to produce a winning car, but not the resources. The other stuff about staff working to rule, sacking other executive staff etc becomes almost plausible.
Brad Hollinger seems more interested in the Advanced Engineering part of the company
Claire (may also have share options) but the point is moot. What Frank owns, and what he’s cashed in at the 2011 float - lions share of the £60m raised - will likely be partly passed down to her and the siblings. She’s alright on any count.
Frank doesn’t need to be on the board. And, for the sake of being able to maintain true power over the firm, being outside of it, yet the majority shareholder of the company and having his daughter as a Director of the company, means he has three things: proxy voice (Claire), the largest ownership chunk, and he can say what he wants about the boards performance (if dissatisfied). Take Lawrence Stroll, for instance. He had more power and influence by not being a shareholder in the team. He could skewer people because he was injecting vital capital, and he had the able threat to walk away if things weren’t to his liking.
O’Driscoll and the other guys are just running the firm, the business, as you’d expect and to corporate governance standards. They’re impact on the running of the F1 team I doubt will be too heavy. The F1 team receives externally the greater proportion of income, and it would be within that subsidiary structure where they then decide how to spend it (car, salaries for staff, etc). The people who directly run that subsidiary will be Claire (and Frank).
Hollinger is likely very interested in the Advanced side. Anyway would be. With the right marketing it could be a real player in a niche segment. Where AE needs to be better planted is to be seen as a genuine solution when the larger car manufacturers are faced with a ‘build or buy’ option. To often politics in a large organisation will kill the idea of going out to a Willams for consultancy or delivery because some employees will want to convince that they have the answers.
Corporate debt and covenants don’t look too bad, and having a revolving credit facility with one bank over a lengthy time indicates good relations.
rdjohn said:
Following yesterday’s sad news, I searched for William’s latest financial report. 2018 is due at the end of April, so we only have 2017 to look at at - https://az732437.vo.msecnd.net/-/media/williamsf1/...
Somethings that surprised me are that
Frank is not even on the board
Paddy was not a shareholder, though at the time of his appointment, much was made about him taking a slice of the action.
Claire is on the board, but not a shareholder in her own right.
£7million of their profit came from a one-off land sale.
They owed the bank £10million, down from £25million debt in 2016
The heritage cars are on the books for £20million, but it would be interesting to see what they would fetch at auction.
But the overriding impression that the real power behind the business is in the hands of Nick Rose, Mike O’Driscol, Doug Lefferty and Mark Biddle. I think these are who Pete Windsor is blaming for the failures - they understand finance, but not how to be successful in F1.
My guess is that they gave Paddy the free reign to produce a winning car, but not the resources. The other stuff about staff working to rule, sacking other executive staff etc becomes almost plausible.
Brad Hollinger seems more interested in the Advanced Engineering part of the company
Frank owns 52.5% of the shares - See note 25.Somethings that surprised me are that
Frank is not even on the board
Paddy was not a shareholder, though at the time of his appointment, much was made about him taking a slice of the action.
Claire is on the board, but not a shareholder in her own right.
£7million of their profit came from a one-off land sale.
They owed the bank £10million, down from £25million debt in 2016
The heritage cars are on the books for £20million, but it would be interesting to see what they would fetch at auction.
But the overriding impression that the real power behind the business is in the hands of Nick Rose, Mike O’Driscol, Doug Lefferty and Mark Biddle. I think these are who Pete Windsor is blaming for the failures - they understand finance, but not how to be successful in F1.
My guess is that they gave Paddy the free reign to produce a winning car, but not the resources. The other stuff about staff working to rule, sacking other executive staff etc becomes almost plausible.
Brad Hollinger seems more interested in the Advanced Engineering part of the company
This gives him control of the company.
tigerkoi said:
I’ve posted this image before. Think it says everything about that particular relationship.
Classic beta-male-getting-the-facts-of-life-dictated-to-him-by-guy-who-pays-the-bills, scene.
Poor sod might as well have been having sand kicked in his face down by the beach.
Fundoreen said:
tigerkoi said:
I’ve posted this image before. Think it says everything about that particular relationship.
Classic beta-male-getting-the-facts-of-life-dictated-to-him-by-guy-who-pays-the-bills, scene.
Poor sod might as well have been having sand kicked in his face down by the beach.
t on interviews as well.Stan the Bat said:
Seems to have rubbed off on the son,I think young Stroll comes over as a bit of an entitled tt on interviews as well.
Watching the Netflix thing, I agree!t on interviews as well.In fact even before the Netflix thing...
Then again, if I were born into that kind of wealthy existence what would I be like? I'd like to think less of a bellend but who knows
RichB said:
Is that what he does? I wouldn't have had a clue.
In F1, it's not where the money comes from, it's what it does 
At Williams these days it does bugger all apparently.
At RP Force India is seems they can spend about 50p and compete in the midfield quite happily.
Same money, wildly different results.
TheDeuce said:
In F1, it's not where the money comes from, it's what it does
At Williams these days it does bugger all apparently.
At RP Force India is seems they can spend about 50p and compete in the midfield quite happily.
Same money, wildly different results.
Who really knows? When all of your funding is based on fraud, do you really need to run accurate books?At Williams these days it does bugger all apparently.
At RP Force India is seems they can spend about 50p and compete in the midfield quite happily.
Same money, wildly different results.
F1, football etc have for many many years been great ways of washing dubious money. Side deals would be trivial compared to some of the skullduggery implied by journos looking at history..
Some Gump said:
Who really knows? When all of your funding is based on fraud, do you really need to run accurate books?
F1, football etc have for many many years been great ways of washing dubious money. Side deals would be trivial compared to some of the skullduggery implied by journos looking at history..
They don't 'wash' dirty money, they just get connected with dirty money when it's used as the media attention eventually exposes the source of the money. It matters not a jot in F1 terms where the money come from - the teams themselves are not interested in clever accountancy or fiddling the books. It's very simple, you shove money in one end and then measure the result at the other end.F1, football etc have for many many years been great ways of washing dubious money. Side deals would be trivial compared to some of the skullduggery implied by journos looking at history..
The wonderful thing about F1 teams, is that none of them want or need to make a profit. Profit is just proof that they held money back and could have done better. They exist only to promote the interests of those that put up the money. Regardless of how dodgy those sources may be..
C Lee Farquar said:
Force India spent significantly more money than they generated which is why they are in administration.
I actually don't know the full story there to be honest.Did they spend more than they had in expected revenue? Or was some of the expected revenue not forthcoming as expected? Is any of the detail actually in the public domain? - If so i'd take the time to read it.
What is significant? When it comes to staff not being paid then £10m would be very significant, but in F1 budget terms overall it's about 5% off target for the average team, so not that significant at all.
Whilst I am genuinely interested to learn more about the the Force India story, it in no way changes my view that Williams are grossly inefficient with their budget by comparison. If Force India did get extra performance by over spending, I can accept that in theory. But the chasm in performance between them and Williams is more than can be accounted for by some bad budgeting. Also, it's not just Force India that bested Williams with a lesser budget.
The inescapable reality is that Williams start with a perfectly reasonable midfield budget each year and turn it in to an entirely noncompetitive result.
Edited by TheDeuce on Friday 8th March 23:35
TheDeuce said:
The inescapable reality is that Williams start with a perfectly reasonable midfield budget each year and turn it in to an entirely noncompetitive result.
I've found this list: https://www.gptoday.net/en/news/f1/236949/budgets-...Mercedes Approx. €450 million
Ferrari Approx. €430 million
Red Bull Approx. €350 million
McLaren Approx. €250 million
Renault Approx. €200 million
Sauber Approx. €135 million
Williams Approx. €135 million
Toro Rosso Approx. €125 million
Haas Approx. €110 million
Force India Approx. €110 million
I've watched some of the Netflix documentary; Claire Williams talks of about £125m, so that correlates.
Toro Rosso and Haas are not stem-to-sterm manufacturers (that's a different conversation, but relevant here). Sauber have struggled hugely, and were dead last in 2017 - they're rebounding with fresh capital, and still have a lot of strong assets from their earlier quasi-works deals. Force India do indeed punch above their weight.
Williams' budget is very low for what they're trying to achieve. Force India's is clearly the model they need to adopt.
skwdenyer said:
TheDeuce said:
The inescapable reality is that Williams start with a perfectly reasonable midfield budget each year and turn it in to an entirely noncompetitive result.
I've found this list: https://www.gptoday.net/en/news/f1/236949/budgets-...Mercedes Approx. €450 million
Ferrari Approx. €430 million
Red Bull Approx. €350 million
McLaren Approx. €250 million
Renault Approx. €200 million
Sauber Approx. €135 million
Williams Approx. €135 million
Toro Rosso Approx. €125 million
Haas Approx. €110 million
Force India Approx. €110 million
I've watched some of the Netflix documentary; Claire Williams talks of about £125m, so that correlates.
Toro Rosso and Haas are not stem-to-sterm manufacturers (that's a different conversation, but relevant here). Sauber have struggled hugely, and were dead last in 2017 - they're rebounding with fresh capital, and still have a lot of strong assets from their earlier quasi-works deals. Force India do indeed punch above their weight.
Williams' budget is very low for what they're trying to achieve. Force India's is clearly the model they need to adopt.
However broken Williams are, the money issues are real limitations.
TheDeuce said:
I actually don't know the full story there to be honest.
Is any of the detail actually in the public domain?
I get the statements because I'm listed as a creditor, although the account was clear when they went into administration.Is any of the detail actually in the public domain?
As has been mentioned by others Williams manufacture many more parts than FI. It's part of their ethos but has become less effective as the auto manufacturers have injected more resources.
I'm not proficient enough to analyse either Companies accounts in any detail, but as companies FI (as was) and Williams are completely different set ups. Williams have a whole complex, FI have a large industrial unit on the fringes of Silverstone. EJ was fairly cute when he sold, retaining much of the area around the base.
Anyway. I just hope Williams can improve their situation.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff