McLaren refusing to supply independents
Discussion
TommyTerrible said:
As John suggested, I took the liberty of having a look at the published accounts. The accounts are unaudited and do not contain the P&L, just the balance sheet. Nothing unusual in that for a micro-business with only 4 employees, but you can’t really come to a conclusion on the financial strength until a full set of unabridged audited accounts are filed. The international expansion sounds all world-dominating, but in reality seems to be nothing more than a toe in the water to attract some consultancy work from overseas indies. One would think that UK expansion would be more appropriate, covering some of the denser areas / corridors where McLaren ownership is more prevalent. REPerformance and Litchfield are making headway in the south and mid-west. As for 20 years, have you looked back as far as 2011 and 2013 on CH and in the London Gazette? Not sure of the circumstances, but there was two compulsory strike off notices, which were eventually discontinued.
The risk is very very high. Only two weeks ago, John was bricking himself that it could be the end of his business. I for one, won’t be renewing, but will revert back to the McLaren extended warranty. It’s more expensive, but my money is safe.
"micro-business" that illustrates your pretty demeaning angle on this, either that or you don't know your Small companies from your Micro-entities.The risk is very very high. Only two weeks ago, John was bricking himself that it could be the end of his business. I for one, won’t be renewing, but will revert back to the McLaren extended warranty. It’s more expensive, but my money is safe.
Ferruccio said:
This thread really is a tragic indictment of the world as it is today.
When I bought my first sports car in 1987, I got to meet a wonderful band of people - “A happy band of irregulars”.
It was fun.
The people at the dealer were fun. The people at the factory were fun. The owners were fun.
I remember a chap turning up at Silverstone in his Ferrari 250 GTO, a recent ham sandwich wrapper and empty tube of smarties stuff behind his seat.
No one was it it for the money; certainly not the owners, and the factory was not driven by the IRR on the business plan, whilst geared up to the maximum possible.
There was no talk about investment. About warranties. About supplying parts legally or illegally. About fonts. About passing off. It was a passion.
Nobody gave a s
t about any of that stuff.
Some lucky people managed to make a living around these cars. Some of them still do it today because they love it.
Personally, I think VCs make lousy owners of car companies.
But SOME customers and dealers also seem to have disappeared so far up their own bottoms that they really have completely lost sight of what sports cars should be about.
Amen.When I bought my first sports car in 1987, I got to meet a wonderful band of people - “A happy band of irregulars”.
It was fun.
The people at the dealer were fun. The people at the factory were fun. The owners were fun.
I remember a chap turning up at Silverstone in his Ferrari 250 GTO, a recent ham sandwich wrapper and empty tube of smarties stuff behind his seat.
No one was it it for the money; certainly not the owners, and the factory was not driven by the IRR on the business plan, whilst geared up to the maximum possible.
There was no talk about investment. About warranties. About supplying parts legally or illegally. About fonts. About passing off. It was a passion.
Nobody gave a s
t about any of that stuff.Some lucky people managed to make a living around these cars. Some of them still do it today because they love it.
Personally, I think VCs make lousy owners of car companies.
But SOME customers and dealers also seem to have disappeared so far up their own bottoms that they really have completely lost sight of what sports cars should be about.
Thorney said:
jimPH said:
After skim reading this thread I'LL NEVER BUY A MCLAREN.
In part due to the actions of McLaren. But mostly because I can't afford one.
And that is a shame, they really are great cars.In part due to the actions of McLaren. But mostly because I can't afford one.
Mcl HQ in drag are perhaps on this thread eh Tommy? 
Show me any independents service garage in UK that does not file accounts for smaller companies please. Awful hatchet job posts as mentioned previously. Short term company values at Woking with little or no understanding of petrolheads.
Show me any independents service garage in UK that does not file accounts for smaller companies please. Awful hatchet job posts as mentioned previously. Short term company values at Woking with little or no understanding of petrolheads. Stick Legs said:
Ferruccio said:
This thread really is a tragic indictment of the world as it is today.
When I bought my first sports car in 1987, I got to meet a wonderful band of people - “A happy band of irregulars”.
It was fun.
The people at the dealer were fun. The people at the factory were fun. The owners were fun.
I remember a chap turning up at Silverstone in his Ferrari 250 GTO, a recent ham sandwich wrapper and empty tube of smarties stuff behind his seat.
No one was it it for the money; certainly not the owners, and the factory was not driven by the IRR on the business plan, whilst geared up to the maximum possible.
There was no talk about investment. About warranties. About supplying parts legally or illegally. About fonts. About passing off. It was a passion.
Nobody gave a st about any of that stuff.
Some lucky people managed to make a living around these cars. Some of them still do it today because they love it.
Personally, I think VCs make lousy owners of car companies.
But SOME customers and dealers also seem to have disappeared so far up their own bottoms that they really have completely lost sight of what sports cars should be about.
Amen.When I bought my first sports car in 1987, I got to meet a wonderful band of people - “A happy band of irregulars”.
It was fun.
The people at the dealer were fun. The people at the factory were fun. The owners were fun.
I remember a chap turning up at Silverstone in his Ferrari 250 GTO, a recent ham sandwich wrapper and empty tube of smarties stuff behind his seat.
No one was it it for the money; certainly not the owners, and the factory was not driven by the IRR on the business plan, whilst geared up to the maximum possible.
There was no talk about investment. About warranties. About supplying parts legally or illegally. About fonts. About passing off. It was a passion.
Nobody gave a s
t about any of that stuff.Some lucky people managed to make a living around these cars. Some of them still do it today because they love it.
Personally, I think VCs make lousy owners of car companies.
But SOME customers and dealers also seem to have disappeared so far up their own bottoms that they really have completely lost sight of what sports cars should be about.
TB993tt said:
"micro-business" that illustrates your pretty demeaning angle on this, either that or you don't know your Small companies from your Micro-entities.
It depends on what definition you are using - there are several. Generally, Micro-businesses have less than 10 employees. It is an EU and UK government recognised description, which is there to provide some additional statutory protections for those very small companies that generally don’t have the financial resource and/or infrastructure to operate at a level larger businesses have.For instance. B2B Roll-over contracts, usually used within the utilities sector, cannot be applied to businesses with less than 10 employees.
Not sure why you are getting your knickers in a twist over a perfectly valid description.
Ferruccio said:
This thread really is a tragic indictment of the world as it is today.
When I bought my first sports car in 1987, I got to meet a wonderful band of people - “A happy band of irregulars”.
It was fun.
The people at the dealer were fun. The people at the factory were fun. The owners were fun.
I remember a chap turning up at Silverstone in his Ferrari 250 GTO, a recent ham sandwich wrapper and empty tube of smarties stuffed behind his seat.
No one was in it for the money; certainly not the owners, and the factory was not driven by the IRR on the business plan, whilst geared up to the maximum possible.
There was no talk about investment. About warranties. About supplying parts legally or illegally. About fonts. About passing off. It was a passion.
Nobody gave a st about any of that stuff.
Some lucky people managed to make a living around these cars. Some of them still do it today because they love it.
Personally, I think VCs make lousy owners of car companies.
But SOME customers and dealers also seem to have disappeared so far up their own bottoms that they really have completely lost sight of what sports cars should be about.
Couldnt agree more! The irony of course is that its ever more difficult to enjoy using a sports car as was intended, going fast on public roads or in weekend competition. So really they have become little more than a toy or a dick extension. They arent even a display of wealth and success since 90% ( according to my Ferrari dealer) are bought on credit. That however means that the people who can cover the monthly payments often cant stand a large loss on resale. When I bought my first sports car in 1987, I got to meet a wonderful band of people - “A happy band of irregulars”.
It was fun.
The people at the dealer were fun. The people at the factory were fun. The owners were fun.
I remember a chap turning up at Silverstone in his Ferrari 250 GTO, a recent ham sandwich wrapper and empty tube of smarties stuffed behind his seat.
No one was in it for the money; certainly not the owners, and the factory was not driven by the IRR on the business plan, whilst geared up to the maximum possible.
There was no talk about investment. About warranties. About supplying parts legally or illegally. About fonts. About passing off. It was a passion.
Nobody gave a s
t about any of that stuff.Some lucky people managed to make a living around these cars. Some of them still do it today because they love it.
Personally, I think VCs make lousy owners of car companies.
But SOME customers and dealers also seem to have disappeared so far up their own bottoms that they really have completely lost sight of what sports cars should be about.
Edited by Ferruccio on Wednesday 10th November 09:45
Edited by Ferruccio on Wednesday 10th November 09:57
Irritatingly something similar has happened to bikes where the once greasy handed dealer enthusiast has been taken over by the likes of Sytner populated by salesmen in shiny suits and pointed shoes who know sod all about the workings of the machine.
Maybe the moans of an old man but I can remember in the 60s taking my Spitfire ( max 90mph down hill, following breeze) from home in Bradford to University in Oxford and averaging just on 60 mph for the full journey. No motorways then - cross country on A roads. Could I do that now in my Ferrari even allowing for motorways? Would I enjoy even trying? No way.
Got to face it. The days when driving was fun are over in a blizzard of low speed limits, scameras, and congestion.
Edited by bordseye on Wednesday 10th November 10:23
ThePackMan said:
MarkwG said:
ThePackMan said:
R8Reece said:
MarkwG said:
There are 146 trademarks involving the word "mclaren" - some active, some inactive, some dead, some refused. Many are registered to companies who have nothing to do with road cars or motor racing. Those relating to the manufacture of road &/or race cars that use the word "McLaren" with the speed mark after the "n" & use a stylised font, are owned by the company we know as McLaren. The word "McLaren" without the speed mark has also been trademarked by them, which I imagine is what has been licenced to third parties, ensuring that "McLaren with the speed mark" remains uniquely connected to the licence holder. The key is indeed the speed mark logo, but the trademarked element is the word & the speed mark: I suspect they're happy to licence people to use it appropriately without the speed mark, but not with: which is pretty much what Mr Thorney said some time back, & what appears on his shirts. https://trademarks.ipo.gov.uk/ipo-tmtext/page/Resu...
Thanks, that is how I understood it i.e. the speed mark is the differentiator between what Thorney and McLaren use.The McLaren word trademark covers five classes, none of which relate specifically to the repair of motor vehicles. Therefore, as I understand the law, he's perfectly at liberty to use the word alone to advertise his business, provided he doesn't use it to promote any activities that fall within those five classes - as that would infringe their IPO. McLaren race cars, & they build them to sell - but they don't service & maintain them, as he does. Hence why McLaren the property company can separately trademark their business interests, in different classes, without recourse to McLaren the car manufacturer.
Borrowing your analogy, you can advertise that you're an orchard selling apples, with a picture of an apple, & trademark that if the authorities let you; what you can't do, is promote your business repairing computers to compete with Apple Inc, the technology company, by using an apple motif - because they also repair computers, as well as selling them.
I'm pretty sure we're covering ground that Mr Thorney & his legal team have already covered: if it was that big an issue, then try googling Verdi Ferrari - they're sailing far closer to the wind than he is, unless, of course, they have a licence agreement in place.
TommyTerrible said:
It depends on what definition you are using - there are several. Generally, Micro-businesses have less than 10 employees. It is an EU and UK government recognised description, which is there to provide some additional statutory protections for those very small companies that generally don’t have the financial resource and/or infrastructure to operate at a level larger businesses have.
For instance. B2B Roll-over contracts, usually used within the utilities sector, cannot be applied to businesses with less than 10 employees.
Not sure why you are getting your knickers in a twist over a perfectly valid description.
Because I think you used it to be demeaning to Thorney, the definition is set out by the Government, you don't get a choiceFor instance. B2B Roll-over contracts, usually used within the utilities sector, cannot be applied to businesses with less than 10 employees.
Not sure why you are getting your knickers in a twist over a perfectly valid description.
https://www.gov.uk/annual-accounts/microentities-s...
R8Reece said:
ThePackMan said:
You’re ignoring that he’s using it on clothing and McLaren do have a registered trademark in clothing (class18). So to use your analogy he’s not growing apples in an orchard, he’s putting the McLaren name on his clothing. End of.
According to the Internet, class 18 relates to leather good such as handbags and also whips?Edited by R8Reece on Wednesday 10th November 09:10
bordseye said:
Ferruccio said:
This thread really is a tragic indictment of the world as it is today.
When I bought my first sports car in 1987, I got to meet a wonderful band of people - “A happy band of irregulars”.
It was fun.
The people at the dealer were fun. The people at the factory were fun. The owners were fun.
I remember a chap turning up at Silverstone in his Ferrari 250 GTO, a recent ham sandwich wrapper and empty tube of smarties stuffed behind his seat.
No one was in it for the money; certainly not the owners, and the factory was not driven by the IRR on the business plan, whilst geared up to the maximum possible.
There was no talk about investment. About warranties. About supplying parts legally or illegally. About fonts. About passing off. It was a passion.
Nobody gave a st about any of that stuff.
Some lucky people managed to make a living around these cars. Some of them still do it today because they love it.
Personally, I think VCs make lousy owners of car companies.
But SOME customers and dealers also seem to have disappeared so far up their own bottoms that they really have completely lost sight of what sports cars should be about.
Couldnt agree more! The irony of course is that its ever more difficult to enjoy using a sports car as was intended, going fast on public roads or in weekend competition. So really they have become little more than a toy or a dick extension. They arent even a display of wealth and success since 90% ( according to my Ferrari dealer) are bought on credit. That however means that the people who can cover the monthly payments often cant stand a large loss on resale. When I bought my first sports car in 1987, I got to meet a wonderful band of people - “A happy band of irregulars”.
It was fun.
The people at the dealer were fun. The people at the factory were fun. The owners were fun.
I remember a chap turning up at Silverstone in his Ferrari 250 GTO, a recent ham sandwich wrapper and empty tube of smarties stuffed behind his seat.
No one was in it for the money; certainly not the owners, and the factory was not driven by the IRR on the business plan, whilst geared up to the maximum possible.
There was no talk about investment. About warranties. About supplying parts legally or illegally. About fonts. About passing off. It was a passion.
Nobody gave a s
t about any of that stuff.Some lucky people managed to make a living around these cars. Some of them still do it today because they love it.
Personally, I think VCs make lousy owners of car companies.
But SOME customers and dealers also seem to have disappeared so far up their own bottoms that they really have completely lost sight of what sports cars should be about.
Edited by Ferruccio on Wednesday 10th November 09:45
Edited by Ferruccio on Wednesday 10th November 09:57
Irritatingly something similar has happened to bikes where the once greasy handed dealer enthusiast has been taken over by the likes of Sytner populated by salesmen in shiny suits and pointed shoes who know sod all about the workings of the machine.
Maybe the moans of an old man but I can remember in the 60s taking my Spitfire ( max 90mph down hill, following breeze) from home in Bradford to University in Oxford and averaging just on 60 mph for the full journey. No motorways then - cross country on A roads. Could I do that now in my Ferrari even allowing for motorways? Would I enjoy even trying? No way.
Got to face it. The days when driving was fun are over in a blizzard of low speed limits, scameras, and congestion.
Edited by bordseye on Wednesday 10th November 10:23
That does completely changes the ante.
Bikes I’m less sure about.
I commute on a Panigalle.
I still find bike people generally more like the car people of yesteryear………..
A while back the belt went on my scooter on the A3.
The next bike that passed stopped and offered me a lift to wherever I was going.
It was out of his way. I told him not to worry, I’d get a cab.
He insisted.
On I got and off we went. He dropped me at my front door.
Thorney said:
TommyTerrible said:
I for one, won’t be renewing, but will revert back to the McLaren extended warranty. It’s more expensive, but my money is safe.
Hi. Tried to send you an email but your account is hidden and wont accept emails, if you have one of our warranties and are unhappy then let me know and I will refund it for you. Edited by TommyTerrible on Tuesday 9th November 23:14
TommyTerrible said:
TB993tt said:
"micro-business" that illustrates your pretty demeaning angle on this, either that or you don't know your Small companies from your Micro-entities.
It depends on what definition you are using - there are several. Generally, Micro-businesses have less than 10 employees. It is an EU and UK government recognised description, which is there to provide some additional statutory protections for those very small companies that generally don’t have the financial resource and/or infrastructure to operate at a level larger businesses have.For instance. B2B Roll-over contracts, usually used within the utilities sector, cannot be applied to businesses with less than 10 employees.
Not sure why you are getting your knickers in a twist over a perfectly valid description.
Look at the price its debt traded at.
Still making losses + negative cash flow.
TB993tt said:
Because I think you used it to be demeaning to Thorney, the definition is set out by the Government, you don't get a choice
https://www.gov.uk/annual-accounts/microentities-s...
That’s only one of the interpretations. For instance, HMRC only uses the criteria of having less than 10 employees. For legislation purposes, the EU uses only less than 10 employees.https://www.gov.uk/annual-accounts/microentities-s...
The ONS only uses less than 10 employees, which is the definitive description and the de-facto benchmark when reporting statistics, which is why the EU and HMRC adopt the same.
If you must rely on the CH interpretation to support your point, what is the turnover? Thorney has chosen not to publish the P&L. The CH interpretation is only for their own filing purpose, nothing more.
TommyTerrible said:
That’s only one of the interpretations. For instance, HMRC only uses the criteria of having less than 10 employees. For legislation purposes, the EU uses only less than 10 employees.
The ONS only uses less than 10 employees, which is the definitive description and the de-facto benchmark when reporting statistics, which is why the EU and HMRC adopt the same.
If you must rely on the CH interpretation to support your point, what is the turnover? Thorney has chosen not to publish the P&L. The CH interpretation is only for their own filing purpose, nothing more.
I "relied" on CH interpretation because this is where you said you had just read the info and must've seen the "Small company" description which you decided consciously or not to convert to an alternative description which fitted your overall demeaning narrative better - or maybe not The ONS only uses less than 10 employees, which is the definitive description and the de-facto benchmark when reporting statistics, which is why the EU and HMRC adopt the same.
If you must rely on the CH interpretation to support your point, what is the turnover? Thorney has chosen not to publish the P&L. The CH interpretation is only for their own filing purpose, nothing more.
Edited by TB993tt on Wednesday 10th November 11:12
bordseye said:
…
Maybe the moans of an old man but I can remember in the 60s taking my Spitfire ( max 90mph down hill, following breeze) from home in Bradford to University in Oxford and averaging just on 60 mph for the full journey. No motorways then - cross country on A roads. Could I do that now in my Ferrari even allowing for motorways? Would I enjoy even trying? No way.
Got to face it. The days when driving was fun are over in a blizzard of low speed limits, scameras, and congestion.
I don’t think it’s moans. Maybe the moans of an old man but I can remember in the 60s taking my Spitfire ( max 90mph down hill, following breeze) from home in Bradford to University in Oxford and averaging just on 60 mph for the full journey. No motorways then - cross country on A roads. Could I do that now in my Ferrari even allowing for motorways? Would I enjoy even trying? No way.
Got to face it. The days when driving was fun are over in a blizzard of low speed limits, scameras, and congestion.
Edited by bordseye on Wednesday 10th November 10:23
After passing my test I would think nothing of trying to hit 100mph in my sister’s sh*tty fiesta 1.1. 4 gears. No power steering, no abs, wheels felt like they were wanting to blow out, car vibrations like crazy, exhaust rattling away like it’ll fall off.
Speed cams, congestion all existed for me then too.
I think a lot of this is just realities of growing up and having responsibilities.
TB993tt said:
I "relied" on CH interpretation because this is where you said you had just read the info and must've seen the "Small company" description which you decided conscientiously or not to convert to an alternative description which fitted your overall demeaning narrative better - or maybe not
Do keep up. I used the micro-business description in another post well before the post you are referring to and before John posted about his accounts being published on CH. Before even looking at the accounts, I was aware that headcount was much less than 10 anyway, which is why I used the description - it’s not an insult, it’s a fact. It’s well known in the MOC UK and by his customers what size Johns business is. Having worked in utilities supply chain, I’m well versed in the definitions and comes as 2nd nature.TommyTerrible said:
TB993tt said:
I "relied" on CH interpretation because this is where you said you had just read the info and must've seen the "Small company" description which you decided conscientiously or not to convert to an alternative description which fitted your overall demeaning narrative better - or maybe not
Do keep up. I used the micro-business description in another post well before the post you are referring to and before John posted about his accounts being published on CH. Before even looking at the accounts, I was aware that headcount was much less than 10 anyway, which is why I used the description - it’s not an insult, it’s a fact. It’s well known in the MOC UK and by his customers what size Johns business is. Having worked in utilities supply chain, I’m well versed in the definitions and comes as 2nd nature.Desert Dragon said:
Mcl HQ in drag are perhaps on this thread eh Tommy? Show me any independents service garage in UK that does not file accounts for smaller companies please. Awful hatchet job posts as mentioned previously. Short term company values at Woking with little or no understanding of petrolheads.
I’m sure if John was concerned about this whole topic, he would probably have good cause to have it removed. Show me any independents service garage in UK that does not file accounts for smaller companies please. Awful hatchet job posts as mentioned previously. Short term company values at Woking with little or no understanding of petrolheads. This whole topic acts as an audit trail for a potential legal dispute in support of Johns case - reputation damage - loss of business etc. caused by a ridiculous decision to withhold parts, clearly in breach of the MVBER’s.
John has responded to all criticism and questions throughout this whole thread in a calm, objective and fair manner.
He’s probably sat back in his office chair right now, with a big grin on his face - he’s no fool. Hopefully he is taking screenshots just in case it does get removed at the request of another party.
He’s a micro-business being bullied by a large enterprise (TB993tt, that’s over 250 employees mate).
A recent PH 720S buyers guide even makes reference to this thread.
I may dress up in female clothes, but it doesn’t have the McLaren logo on it.
Edited by TommyTerrible on Wednesday 10th November 12:11
Gassing Station | McLaren | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff