McLaren - Ron Dennis set to leave McLaren F1
Discussion
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/127064...
poor Ron. I'm not a fan in recent years, but he is one of the great characters
poor Ron. I'm not a fan in recent years, but he is one of the great characters
deadslow said:
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/127064...
poor Ron. I'm not a fan in recent years, but he is one of the great characters
Agreed. With him gone it'll only be Sir Frank left of the old privateers. poor Ron. I'm not a fan in recent years, but he is one of the great characters
s off the majority shareholders.From what I've gathered over the last 2 years, there was a deal in which Ron could buy out (in whole or in part) the other parties in MTG for (presumably) some sort of agreed price. I don't know if there was a time period around that, too.
It is reported that Ron did indeed get 1 bid together, which fell through for various economic reasons. It is reported that Ron got another bid together, but that the sellers decided they did not like the proposed buyers.
It is not clear if there was an actual binding agreement in place through which Ron could force the transaction through. Presumably not, otherwise it is hard to imagine that Ron would not simply have gone to the High Court to enforce it.
It may be that there *was* a binding agreement, but that it expired, and that Ron has been continuing in the hope that it would still be honoured if the money was there. I do not know.
This is, sadly, what happens sometimes. I'm right now negotiating on a deal to buy an asset, and the vendors have been very keen not to sign a binding agreement. For my part, I've made sure that they do - otherwise this sort of thing can be the result.
To those who asked, there is unlikely to be any way for Ron to force the vendors to sell - this is a privately-held company, not one listed on an exchange. There *might* be some provisions in various shareholders' agreements, Articles of incorporation, etc. providing "drag-along" rights, so perhaps Ron has worked out that it is better to get bidders for Automotive and then try to find a way to "drag along" MTG (maybe something to do with the McLaren brand), but we're in the realms of conjecture now.
I'd guess there must be *some* reason why Ron thought that a bid might succeed. Equally, if the vendors have said (a) they're not seeling, and (b) Ron's contract won't be renewed, then they might feel justified to say "you're not running the company under the terms of your contract; you're hawking it for sale when we've said we won't sell - we can't have that, sorry - you're suspended."
All very sad.
It is reported that Ron did indeed get 1 bid together, which fell through for various economic reasons. It is reported that Ron got another bid together, but that the sellers decided they did not like the proposed buyers.
It is not clear if there was an actual binding agreement in place through which Ron could force the transaction through. Presumably not, otherwise it is hard to imagine that Ron would not simply have gone to the High Court to enforce it.
It may be that there *was* a binding agreement, but that it expired, and that Ron has been continuing in the hope that it would still be honoured if the money was there. I do not know.
This is, sadly, what happens sometimes. I'm right now negotiating on a deal to buy an asset, and the vendors have been very keen not to sign a binding agreement. For my part, I've made sure that they do - otherwise this sort of thing can be the result.
To those who asked, there is unlikely to be any way for Ron to force the vendors to sell - this is a privately-held company, not one listed on an exchange. There *might* be some provisions in various shareholders' agreements, Articles of incorporation, etc. providing "drag-along" rights, so perhaps Ron has worked out that it is better to get bidders for Automotive and then try to find a way to "drag along" MTG (maybe something to do with the McLaren brand), but we're in the realms of conjecture now.
I'd guess there must be *some* reason why Ron thought that a bid might succeed. Equally, if the vendors have said (a) they're not seeling, and (b) Ron's contract won't be renewed, then they might feel justified to say "you're not running the company under the terms of your contract; you're hawking it for sale when we've said we won't sell - we can't have that, sorry - you're suspended."
All very sad.
lee_fr200 said:
Forgive me for this question but if he owns 25% how can they sack him?
Surely the other bloke who owns 25% can't force the issue
The other shareholders are Mansour ojjeh (25%) and the Bahrain sovereign wealth fund (50%).Surely the other bloke who owns 25% can't force the issue
Between them they can do whatever they want to the board, and with the boards support they can fire whoever they want including the CEO and chairman.
Ron still owns 25% of the company but it is an open question if he wants to continue to do so if he's not allowed to be involved in running it.
It is obviously not a coincidence that they've chosen to publicly dump him when he's trying to put this deal together. I don't get why. If it is to corrupt his deal then isn't that against the law? Restraint of trade, or something similar?
I met the bloke twice, once away from the circuits, and he was absolutely charming. I told him I was a nerdish fan and he chatted away.
I met the bloke twice, once away from the circuits, and he was absolutely charming. I told him I was a nerdish fan and he chatted away.
lee_fr200 said:
Yeah I get he doesn't own 75% but neither does the guy from tag they own the same
Bet he wishes he hadn't sold any of his stake to them in the first place
Ron and Mansoor were extremely close friends. It's been reported before that this all changed when Ron's marriage broke up. It was reported that Ojjeh 'sided' with Lisa, for reasons I'm not aware of, although ironically, a PHer posted on here with some relevant information at the time...amusing if it was indeed true!Bet he wishes he hadn't sold any of his stake to them in the first place
So when Ron offered a share of the business to Mansoor, it could well have been be because he trusted him as a very close friend. Collectively they then invited Mumatalak to the party on the basis of the close relationship Ron always seemed to have with the Bahraini royal family who have always been interested in F1 and diversifying their interests.
Ojjeh has no connection with Tag Heuer.
But anyway, if the offer is for the entire group, I think I'm right in saying that the shareholding structure is broader? That's why I'm a little unclear about the power wielded by the 75% shareholders in this instance.
As others have said, the CEO is there to best serve the interests of the company/shareholders. I've worked with plenty of firms where investors/shareholders shuffle the C level pack.
rubystone said:
But anyway, if the offer is for the entire group, I think I'm right in saying that the shareholding structure is broader? That's why I'm a little unclear about the power wielded by the 75% shareholders in this instance.
It depends what you mean by the 'entire group'. Most McLaren companies, including the F1 team, are subsidiaries of McLaren Technology Group Ltd. The shareholding of this is:Ron Dennis 25%
TAG Group Ltd (Mansour Ojjeh) 25%
Bahrain Mumtalakat Holding Company 50%
The car business, McLaren Automotive Ltd, is not part of McLaren Technology Group Ltd and has a separate ownership structure.
Bahrain Mumtalakat Holding Company 55.5%
TAG Group Ltd 11%
Ron Dennis 10%
The remaining 23.5% is held by 4 small investors.
Whether this dispute is only in regard to the McLaren Technology Group or covers both the Group and the car business remains to be seen but either way the Bahrainis and Ojjeh have sufficient control to push Ron out.
ralphrj said:
It depends what you mean by the 'entire group'. Most McLaren companies, including the F1 team, are subsidiaries of McLaren Technology Group Ltd. The shareholding of this is:
Ron Dennis 25%
TAG Group Ltd (Mansour Ojjeh) 25%
Bahrain Mumtalakat Holding Company 50%
The car business, McLaren Automotive Ltd, is not part of McLaren Technology Group Ltd and has a separate ownership structure.
Bahrain Mumtalakat Holding Company 55.5%
TAG Group Ltd 11%
Ron Dennis 10%
The remaining 23.5% is held by 4 small investors.
Whether this dispute is only in regard to the McLaren Technology Group or covers both the Group and the car business remains to be seen but either way the Bahrainis and Ojjeh have sufficient control to push Ron out.
Thanks, that's very clear. He has little hope of survival given that state of affairs then. Ron Dennis 25%
TAG Group Ltd (Mansour Ojjeh) 25%
Bahrain Mumtalakat Holding Company 50%
The car business, McLaren Automotive Ltd, is not part of McLaren Technology Group Ltd and has a separate ownership structure.
Bahrain Mumtalakat Holding Company 55.5%
TAG Group Ltd 11%
Ron Dennis 10%
The remaining 23.5% is held by 4 small investors.
Whether this dispute is only in regard to the McLaren Technology Group or covers both the Group and the car business remains to be seen but either way the Bahrainis and Ojjeh have sufficient control to push Ron out.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff