Manor faces the end as it fails to find a buyer

2017 F1 season

Posted on

| Written by

Manor’s hopes of continuing in Formula One have ended as the team has failed to find a buyer.

The team’s staff had been kept on until the end of January in the hope a buyer could be found at the eleventh hour to secure its place in this year’s championship.

Manor was the only team left from the four new entries which were granted admission to the championship in 2010. Of those, US F1 never started a race, while HRT lasted three seasons before going under.

Lotus rebranded as Caterham in 2012 but it too collapsed at the end of the 2014 season. Manor entered the championship under the Virgin brand owned by Richard Branson, but was renamed Marussia by the short-lived Russian sports car company. The team was bought by Stephen Fitzpatrick at the end of 2014 and renamed Manor.

Manor’s 2017 F1 car design revealed
The team scored a point in last year’s Austrian Grand Prix courtesy of Pascal Wehrlein. However they fell to last in the constructors’ championship before the end of the season, costing them millions in prize money.

The news leaves Formula One with just ten teams on the grid for the 2017 F1 season.

EU urged to investigate

Anneliese Dodds, the member of the European Parliament for south-east England, urged the EU’s Competition Commission to respond to the news by beginning an investigation into Formula One. Sauber and Force India raised a complaint with the commission in September 2015.

“The collapse of Manor Racing could be the end of seven turbulent years for a team that brought highly skilled jobs to Oxfordshire,” said Dodds. “I am very concerned that this follows other job losses in small teams.”

“Formula One Group, its owners and the FIA as a regulator really need to be investigated after this collapse. The unfair way in which prize money is allocated in the sport, permanently favouring the largest teams regardless of their finishing position, has seen many teams struggle to survive and ultimately reduced the number of cars on the grid.”

Dodds urged the EU to begin its investigation “before even more highly skilled jobs are lost both in the South East and all around Europe.”

“I will be writing to the Commission to call on them to take serious action on the way F1 is run, before a sport loved by 500 million fans is damaged beyond repair.”

2017 F1 season

Browse all 2017 F1 season articles

Author information

Keith Collantine
Lifelong motor sport fan Keith set up RaceFans in 2005 - when it was originally called F1 Fanatic. Having previously worked as a motoring...

Got a potential story, tip or enquiry? Find out more about RaceFans and contact us here.

74 comments on “Manor faces the end as it fails to find a buyer”

  1. What a shame.

    1. @royal-spark I have to agree. To be as little as 2% off Mercedes’ pace last year on their budget was a remarkable achievement. Their absence says nothing about the efforts of the team and everything about how badly those in charge of F1 until a few days ago wanted to prevent new teams coming in.

      Here’s the model of their 2017 design. Sadly we’ll never know how well it would have done.

      1. This is such a massive shame, Manor did a really solid job in all of their different guises and I’m gutted that yet another independent team has bitten the dust. From what I have ready this was completely avoidable too as there were several opportunities for Fitzpatrick to sell the team but he held out for a price which was unrealistic. Now all these talented people will be facing an uncertain future, hopefully they get picked up by other teams.

        I also have to say that the 2017 car looks to a bit step forward in sophistication from the 2016 car, its a shame it’ll never turn a wheel.

        1. Well said GeeMac. a hughly dissapointing ending to what (in quite a good number of guises) was a team of heart, passion, dedication and good old fashioned hard work. a true insperation to any team.
          just hope as you say that the unemployed staff find good solid jobs they diserve it. i cant help thinking of all the wasted hours that that team have spent on that air tunnel model car which looked like a big advance on last year and might have proved to be.
          Let us raise a glass in memory of this first rate indipentednt team under all its names and in all its changing liveries.

          1. Greg…I love it!! Good shout …ur awesome

      2. It is still not the end of the road.
        Although the operating company will close doors, the F1 license holder company still stands.
        A buyer could still come and buy.

  2. An utterly diseased sport. Whilst Bernie Ecclestone walks away having made in the area of 5 billion pounds owning the commercial rights, small teams fall down constantly. The distribution of wealth went well, then. And everyone is to blame: big teams, FIA (Mosley), WMSC, rulemakers, the lot. Urgh, Liberty better have some really, really good plans.

  3. Already, my enthusiasm about the new season is heavily tainted.

    This is the legacy of the Ecclestone Doctrine. Brawn’s most important priority going forward must be to ensure the long-term sustainability and health of the Formula 1 grid.

  4. I think we should all take a moment to remember not only a small team being lost, but the 2 drivers whose were lost while the team existed. Jules Bianchi should have taken Kimi’s place at Ferrari, and Maria de Velotta, who was trying to break into a sport that makes it almost impossible for a woman to make it. They both deserved better.

  5. Massive massive shame, and I’m sure many had hoped that Liberty would help them in a way that Bernie never did. It shows the scale of what Liberty now face.

    However, I am unsurprised to hear this. They had been rescued and failed so many times, only a fool would be interested in them. They hung on for so long and looked so promising this year it really is upsetting news.

    That’s the last of the 2010 teams. A perfect example of how Bernie has failed F1.

  6. Another rolling roadblock evaporates. Can we stop trying to artificially prop up teams too weak to sustain themselves now, and let the big boys get back to no holds barred racing please?

    Why no, of course not. Brawn will give us easily circumvented cost caps instead, and we’ll continue to chase our tails into oblivion for a fool’s errand.

    1. I do see your point which is how it does appear at first glance, but here is another point: Imagine a running race at the Olympics where the ‘big boy’ countries are given huge budgets and the best running shoes by the IoC because they have the history of having won before. Then imagine the other countries being given wellington boots to run in with backpacks filled with rocks, because they have not yet won a race and are new to the sport. Then we look at the smaller countries and say “well if you run quicker and beat the big boys then you’ll get more money and you’ll get the awesome trainers etc.” But how on earth is that ever going to happen when they already start the race at a huge, insurmountable disadvantage as the race starts?!

      1. The way to fix favoritism for certain teams (which is what giving certain teams payments others don’t get which aren’t need on finishing position is) would be to dismantle the favoritism and share those payments equally between all teams. Introducing an unforgettable budget cap is not the way. It’s high time F1 took a hard line with Ferrari in particular and reduced their payments to the same as any other f1 team.

        1. “It’s high time F1 took a hard line with FERRARI in particular” the usual prejudices against FERRARI.
          The facts show that 4 teams and not only FERRARI gets historical special payments.

      2. @unicron2002, well, if one were cynical enough, it could be pointed out that, in some Olympics events, there are complaints that wealthier countries do indeed use their financial muscle to overwhelm poorer nations that either don’t compete in those fields or are generally outgunned (such as the indoor cycling events).

    2. Can we stop trying to artificially prop up teams too weak to sustain themselves now, and let the big boys get back to no holds barred racing please

      This completely misses the point. The smaller teams exist to race for the sheer joy of it and they compete on a playing field that is heavily skewed against them, the deserve your utmost respect, not your ridicule. If you don’t care about the battle at the back as much as you do the battle at the front, you aren’t an f1 fan in my book. Also, if you took all the cars off the grid that didn’t have a realistic chance of winning you’d only have 4 cars on the grid…and no one wants to watch that.

      Teams like Manor, Caterham/Lotus and even HRT cannot be compared to the shambolic backmarkers of old, they are highly professional companies with budgets and turnovers that would make many businesses green with envy. They are the breeding ground for the engineers and drivers of the future and every time we lose one we lose 2 chances to see young drivers getting as hot to prove their worth and 100 odd people lose the chance they deserve to work in F1. We need the small teams just as much as the big teams.

      1. No point missed at all. Pluck is great but not a reason to institute a cost cap. As for them getting less money, see my reply to the comment before yours. I can’t be bothered typing it all over again.

    3. Another rolling roadblock evaporates.

      If you took the time to study the 2015 TV rights payout you will notice Manor weren’t paid the same rate as other teams were, F1 made a special paltry payment just for them: $10M. F1 expected them to produce two racing cars that complied with their 107% rule at every race of the year all on just $10M. All the other teams got a minimum of $42.7M. What you call a “rolling roadblock” is what others would call “running on the smell of an oily rag”.
      Manor got the smallest payment of any team from the TV rights payout, and they were given the worst amount of TV air time as well, making it far more difficult to attract corporate sponsorship than it needed to be. Despite this, they lined up on the starting grid at every race for the season, which is better than Renault, Haas, Ferrari, and Red Bull did, and had just 8 retirements for the entire season, which is less retirements than Sauber, McLaren, and Torro Rosso achieved. All of that on a budget of $10M. Ferrari and Red Bull were paid 20 times what Manor were paid and they weren’t able to have two cars on the start line at every race of the season.
      This raises an interesting philosophical point: If you set someone up to fail, and they fail, what does that say about yourself? My experience is the person setting you up to fail has so little care they don’t even take the time to see what efforts you put in to not fail. What does that say about the heart of the one who has the power to change things but chooses not to? Surely there is something failing in their heart.
      So yes, you are right, no more Manor Racing lining their cars up at the back of the grid, no more instructions to the TV camera crews and commentators walking the grid to ignore them, and two less cars to have Blue Flags waved at. What could be missing at the 2017 Melbourne GP? The same thing that was missing at every race of the 2016 season: a place in the heart of those in change for a team who believe they can be champions if only things were just that bit fairer.

      1. It is not that f1 expected manor to pull through with 10 millon budget. It was manor who thought doing that was possible. In fact it was fully manor’s own idea because they had an agenda. In these past years the only reason manor was even participating was because they were hoping to sell their spot in f1 to someone. The team itself is not worth anything at all. It has no engineering base to grow into solid mid field team, it is run as barebones as it can get because the investors want to maximise their outcome if they get it sold. Which is unlikely because it is so bad deal. Which in turn makes it not worth it to invest anything into the team.

        As such manor has been running the last 3 or 4 years with only one single goal in mind. To beat the 107% rule. Which is easy because how the rule is calculated. 107% is calculated from the Q1 times which are sometimes seconds slower than the Q3 times. The 107% rule itself is a joke and in current qualifying system it is impossible to not get under it.

        But the point is manor was just hoping to sell. That is because their only purpose in life was to hope they get a sale. I called this a year ago and it was easy prediction to make. Manor could never afford or even want to invest into building a 2017 car unless they win big in 2015 and finish high. So they’d rather quit than participate in 2017. The old car parts collection that has been their racing car for the last 3 years simply can not be converted into 2017 contender cheaply.

        The more crucial piece of the puzzle is the prize money coming from f1. Because in f1 only top 10 teams get prize money (unless you finished in top 10 last season). (And haas is not getting anything either, I don’t know if they take a spot away from manor though). In 2017 the only thing manor was getting was that prize money for that one point they got in 2016. Which is something like 10000£ or 50000£. I don’t remember which. The only reason they raced in 2016 is because they still had some participation ribbon money coming from f1 from their 2014 season where they finished 9th due to massive luck.

        But the only thing they had that was worth anything is their spot in F1. Back in 2010 that spot did cost about 50 million for each of the 4 new teams (virgin, hispania, lotus, usf1). And technically that spot is still available because the team doesn’t hold that spot. Instead that spot is held by a holding company.

        I don’t see any chivalrous sporting achievements with manor. All I see is a cold hearted cash grab, plethora of pay drives sold, some savvy financial maneuvering and a team that exists only because someone was stupid enough to think anyone can do f1 on pennies. They have never been the true racers in f1. They are the guys who had a rich aunt who lent them 50€ to buy boxing gloves so they can fight mike tyson and collect big money from losing the fight. Only for them to fail at it so they spent the next 5 years trying to sell those gloves and a seat to tyson fight for 50000 while their aunt just wants her money back.

        That aunt is not just an empty artistic play of words in that story. The aunt and the debts are very real. Manor’s incapability to pay its debts is somehow all forgotten by these internet manor fans who refuse to accept any negatives about this best team ever. Manor’s end will be putting lots of small manufacturing companies into hard times because they are not getting paid. It was all cold and calculated by manor and as such I can’t be more glad to finally have them gone. The rear end of f1 will become a lot healthier when there are 10 teams and 10 teams getting paid. Should the rules have changed so everybody gets paid? And more equally. Yes of course. But it was just that what they signed up for and they did it anyways.

        Good riddance. Less cars getting lapped in 2017.

  7. Well this is more likely. A few days with quite good news, but we are back to reality, still very flawed this business.

    Something has to be done quickly.

  8. petebaldwin (@)
    27th January 2017, 12:55

    That’s how I’ll remember Bernie’s time in charge of F1. 4 new teams join the sport and all 4 have now gone having never made an impression on the midfield.

    What a legacy.

    1. Peppermint-Lemon (@)
      27th January 2017, 13:28

      Much of the blame must be with those that run those teams also. Its not squarely Bernie’s fault.

      1. Indeed, Haas have done a pretty good job so far as a new team. Regardless how they’ve done it (lots of support from Ferrari) it still required them to go about it in a way that would lead to their first season being viewed as nothing other than a success.

        1. @tonyyeb

          Yes, Haas really got into the spirit of F1, using loopholes to help Ferrari before they were even on the grid! ;-)

          I wouldn’t say that I’m a fan of the team, but they have at least shown that with the right preparation (i.e. bucketloads of cash and good connections) it is possible to enter F1 and not be stuck at the back.

          Now let’s see how well they do over the next year or two.

      2. @peppermint-lemon, I think that it is perhaps some way between the two extremes.

        I would agree that there is a valid argument to make that the uneven distribution in revenues between the front and back of the grid certainly makes the likelihood of smaller teams collapsing that much more likely, and to that end there is a justification for criticising Bernie.

        However, I would also agree with yourself that, even allowing for the fact that the deck was very heavily stacked against those new teams, some of those smaller teams were not being run particularly efficiently.

        If we consider the teams which were granted entry rights, USF1, which folded before even making it onto the grid, were heavily reliant on a single commercial partner who walked out of the team at a very early stage, leaving them with essentially almost no resources.

        With Caterham, there was a feeling that Fernandes was kind of using the team as both a vanity project and as a means of creating advantages for his airline business, which was his real focus (for example, the sponsorship deal with General Electric didn’t bring much revenue to the team as Fernandes used the offer of sponsorship space on his car as a way of persuading GE to give him a discount on engines he was buying for his aircraft). Kolles was reportedly quite critical of the way that the team had been managed when he was asked to try and save the team, allegedly accusing the management (i.e. Fernandes) of spending money as if running a manufacturer team, but only providing the team with the finances for a backmarker team.

        HRT, meanwhile, got off to a bad start as Adrian Campos, the original man behind the team, couldn’t cope with running a team and very nearly drove the team into the ground before they got onto the grid, having blown most of his initial funds without having got the necessary supply deals in place (for example, his admission that he didn’t have the funds in place to pay Dallara for their work on the F110).
        Carabante did eventually force Campos out and the team did just about manage to make it onto the grid after Kolles was put in place, but the rest of HRT’s existence was effectively a prolonged battle by Carabante to try and reclaim his initial investment in the team (the team being run by one of his investment companies, with some of the work then sub-contracted out to Kolles for a while), seeing the team being somewhat starved of funds as Carabante was reluctant to invest more capital into the team.

        In some ways, Manor survived the longest because it was perhaps the best run team of the lot – even then, it has to be said that, to some extent, there was a suspicion that Fitzpatrick picked up Manor because he had been hoping to make a quick buck out of the sale of the team. There is an claim that, as soon as Manor lost 10th place in the WCC to Sauber in the Brazilian GP, Fitzpatrick stopped putting any funds into Manor – so although the prospect of lost prize money played its part in the downfall of the team, there is a suggestion that Fitzpatrick might have hastened the end of the team by causing a cashflow crisis.

        Manor is perhaps one of the more ill fated teams that entered, and the pathos for them is more deserved – whilst Caterham, HRT and USF1 did have their misfortunes as well and were certainly facing an uphill struggle given the competitive balance of the sport, there is an argument that they did also partially contribute to their own downfalls by inefficiently using the limited resources they did have at their disposal to begin with.

  9. Damn…..Manor was a very likeable team. The grit they showed was amazing. Hopefully a new team can join…Maybe 2?

    What?! A guy can hope…..At Mr.E is gone now.

    But, if I was a billionaire, I’d probably take my chances with a slightly weaker Sauber, because they have the heritage and potential of a good midfield team. Manor, on the other hand, have been tossed around from Virgin to Marussia to Fitzpatrick. Not a good record. Not at all surprising.

  10. Just put two orange highway cones at the back of the grid; same difference.


  11. Stephen Fitzpatrick just learned an age-old lesson the hard way:
    How do you make a small fortune in auto racing? Start with a big fortune.

  12. Bernie’s farewell present. Or takeaway rather.

  13. This is exactly why Bernie needed to go. Loved Manor, great little team.

  14. What a huge shame.

    Given that there were (or at least was reported to be) offers, it seems the owners/administrators would prefer to lose everything instead of at least making a reasonable % on their $

    Doubly a shame because with a Merc PU the team was actually making inroads. All it would take is the next Adrian Newy (some bright young and inexpensive designer) to come up with a radical chassis and it could have moved up the ranks.

    1. petebaldwin (@)
      27th January 2017, 14:25

      @dbradock – It’s not as straightforward as that. The business is clearly making a loss at present so the administrators will be having to pay the bills. Any debts will be building up interest and agreements they fail to honour will attract penalty charges.

      The administrators are left paying for this knowing that they will offset the cost by selling the business but there is obviously a point where they would have spent more on wages/debt/taxes/insurance/entry fees (etc) than they will get for selling the business…. Administrators won’t take the risk so they have to set deadlines for everything to be completed by – if it’s not, they are left with no option but to close.

  15. Peppermint-Lemon (@)
    27th January 2017, 13:27

    Let’s see if Liberty put their money where their mouth is. Sort them out, get them back in and hold emergency talks with teams to enforce even distribution of money with immediate effect.

    1. For that to happen a miracle need to be done, and liberty had made clear that the current agreement has not completed yet. So money equal share will take time.

    2. petebaldwin (@)
      27th January 2017, 14:29

      It’s difficult but in my opinion, Liberty shouldn’t help. They shouldn’t bail teams out because it’s not fair – Sauber could do with some money too, for example.

      What they should do is sit in a room with Ross Brawn and whoever else they have involved and not leave that room until they have a plan that means that in 5 years time, a team can join F1 and with the right leadership, can slowly progress up the grid knowing that their very existence won’t hinge on one freak result in a race.

      With the way the teams at the back are paid, the difference between 2nd to last and finishing last is huge. It can make or break a team. How can a team be expected to budget reasonably if one freak result right at the end of the season means their budget is slashed?

      1. I completely agree with that @petebaldwin. Liberty is there to get solutions installed for the future. A plan that works, that everyone can live with, that will make the sport exciting, long term viable and attract a host of new fans and partners.

        At most they should help a loan/be cooperative in regards to the travel organisation/money IF someone buys the team and shows they are putting in solid funding, so that it doesn’t fall between the ship and the wall just because of the logistics of it all.

    3. We all agree we need fairer distribution of money, but there is still the responsibility on a team in F1 to understand the costs it will incur while running a team. Look at how many football teams go to the wall, are liquidated and then bailed out. Football teams are in a constant state of debt and they are allowed to exist in that way. The problem with F1 is that the outlay of funds is constant whereby the income of funds is at the start of the season or when they are able to raise new sponsors. What this shows is that Manor (had they stayed above Sauber) probably would of continued as they had a guarenteed income. But i agree with the comments that this then could of read Sauber instead.

      1. its one way or the other any lower ranked team can go down at anytime. so what liberty can do now is till the current agreement gets over they can lay the ground work of making the share equal, they have to find a way of convincing or controlling the top five teams. Mclaren, ferrari williams redbull williams and the new old one renault get bonus payments.

    4. Current financial deal with the F1 teams expires in 2020 so nothing much is likely to change until then.

  16. This is what F1 management has worked for. They got it.

    Let’s hope the next page of management is better.

  17. I am pinning my hopes on Brawn making the changes necessary to cease these situations from happening so frequently.

    A terrible shame. I loved Manor’s fighting spirit and their livery. Great looking car.

  18. So, time to speculate about the Q1 drop-outs in Melbourne?
    Two Saubers, two Renaults and a Haas?

  19. I sometimes wonder if I’m addicted to being an F1 fan, because when I look at what it has become over the last decade I see little more than a hollowed-out shell of what should be the greatest motorsport series in the world. Purely from an objective viewpoint, it’s an embarrassment.

    And yet, I’ll still be there in front of my TV when March comes around, fixated as usual. Crazy…

    1. Peppermint-Lemon (@)
      27th January 2017, 17:39

      Couldn’t have said it better myself. Exactly how i feel.

  20. So back down to 20… Huge shame, all 3 teams who came in 2010 are gone now. Ridiculous really, nigh on impossible for new teams not to liquidate, honestly surprised Manor lasted so long.

  21. I hope you feel happy, Felipe Nasr!!!

    In all seriousness though, such a sad end to a week that had given so much cause for optimism. Although they’re certainly not to blame, it should give Liberty a kick up the backside regarding the necessity for fairer financial distribution.

  22. A sad day for F1. Ever since the cost cap idea was scrapped, surviving in F1 was always going to be remarkably difficult for the ‘young’ teams. Manor/Virgin/Marussia/Manor Marussia/MRT outlasted the others, and things were really looking up after their strong 2016 season. Consider this confirmation that Liberty has a heck of a lot of work to do. We should be having 26 cars on the grid without too much fuss, not barely managing to have 20.

    Disappointing to see it end how it has.

  23. Shame. I was hoping Ferrari or Mercedes would see it as an opportunity to create a junior team.

  24. Really sad to see them go. A team full of real racers and a great spirit. But Manor were doomed the moment they joined F1. All they could ever do was scrape by and pick up F1 dole money. Surely you enter F1 with the end goal to win. Manor could never do that. The system made it impossible. All 3 entrants of 2010 are gone within 7 years. 2 of them didn’t score points. What a shambles.

  25. Come on, this is just the result of hard edged competition. Teams have come and gone throughout F1 history. The survivors are the teams who manage to live up to the challenge of the day.

    Sure I would rather see Manor on the grid next year, but if you are not good enough…

    2s off the pace of the Merc’s is indeed a fine achievement, against any other form of Motorsport. However, in current F1, 2s is simply not good enough.
    Also, harsh reality – Manor (Marussia) are infamous for one thing, actually scratch that; infamous for two things – the deaths of two of their drivers for a team less than 10 years old, in modern F1 – that’s not a history

    Maybe it’s time for this outfit to pack-up. There will be others to take their place…

    1. Not with the way F1 prize money is distributed. It is not an equal field. Think of it this way, Ferrari still got paid more than Merc for the constructors even though they were in no man’s land. Tells you all you need to know about why teams fold.

  26. to those that complain about F1, you do actually have a voice, vote with your feet by refusing to pay for a sky subscription.

    It is going to take time to undo or improve what CVC did to F1 and that is if Liberty even want to. Let’s not forget that Liberty is in the business of making money, fist and foremost. They will look to build up it’s value as a business and then sell it for a profit. This might not be a bad thing but it could go either way.

    I worked for a Liberty owned company before and they did exactly that, albeit with more of a hands on approach than CVC.

    Putting Brawn in is a good thing, he is a principled man as we have seen with him leaving mercedes so he will act in the best interests of his boss and f1

  27. If only Sauber didn’t take their spot in the Constructors… :(

    1. Then the title of this article would probably read ‘Sauber faces the end as it fails to find a buyer’

      1. No, it wouldn’t. The article wouldn’t exist. Longbow Finance have a goal in mind. Sauber just got a few millions extra by taking P10. Manor, well P10 could have saved them.

  28. I’m sorry to see Manor fade into history. I sincerely hope the present Powers That Be will act on this situation and seriously address the issues that brought down Manor. It should be a warning bell to everyone in the sport about its present state of operation. I believe one more team will go down sometime in 2017

  29. I might be the villain here but what is the point of having a team which is noncompetitive and is lapped 2-3 times during a race? I’d rather see fewer teams competing for points every lap than a race where the safety cars strolls for extra 2-3 laps because the “slower cars” need to be un-lapped. No offense to Manor and its efforts to survive but for exciting F1 we need competitive teams rather a hoard which only works as blue flag barriers for the leading cars.

    1. because the “slower cars” need to be un-lapped

      That got taken out of the rules a while ago.

      The reason is this, the same can be said for Sauber and Renault. Then it can be said for the next lowest team.

      Why no just have ten Red Bulls vs ten Mercedes? Ferrari obviously can’t compete.

      Fact is F1 has had a long history of independent teams. To lose that would make F1 a corporate shell of a what it once was. The greatest moments in F1 are made when the lowest teams achieve. When Mercedes wins we shrug, but when herculean efforts are made, like Force India taking pole in Belgium, or Bianchi scoring points, or Vettel winning the Italian GP in the wet. Those are defining moments in the sports history.

  30. Well they weren’t really good enough were they? I feel for the people who worked in the factory, but nobody can be blamed for them making a mistake coming into the most expensive sport with a small budget. They were always going to fold, because they were last all the time and hardly made any progress. Don’t start all this ‘F1 is diseased’ rubbish again. They only scored two points in seven years in the sport, not a good enough investment. Teams like Force India and Haas show how a new team can work,

    1. Well, they did make some progress. They recovered very well from a poor 2015 season, when they were miles off the pace. They were quite competitive last year, but as reliability is so good nowadays, they could score no more than a single point. Given that last year was the first time since 2009 that all teams scored points, it was a fine effort by the weakest team. Sadly, it wasn’t enough for them to survive.

  31. Real real shame, here’s hoping the new administration will bring in a much healthier structure so we can actually get excited about future new teams.

  32. Two less cars for Lewis to lap each race.

  33. I was gutted when Sauber scored those points in Brazil. I knew that the chance of Manor making the grid for this year were suddenly extremely slim.

    1. Same here. I really wanted Manor to finish 10th in the constructors, and for most of the season, they were on target to achieve that only to lose it too close to the end of the season to re-take it anymore.

  34. I find it pretty ridiculous people here are accusing Manor of being hopeless backmarkers when they gave Renault and Sauber a hard time last season. There have been years they’ve struggled, but that’s been generally down to financial issues, the design team (after the CAD-only disaster) have done a good job with their resources, and the mechanics etc have been solid. The problem has always been the lack of a stable, committed owner, rather than a problem with the team itself.

    Take Force India for example, the first few years they were stuck at the back, but with long-term planning and consistent backing they worked their way up the grid. Manor never got that opportunity.

    1. Michael (@freelittlebirds)
      27th January 2017, 22:47


  35. It’s a shame that losing the 10th place to Sauber in Brazil proved decisive for all of their chances to keep going. I really wanted them to finish 10th in the constructors instead, and for most of the season, they were on target to achieve that only to lose it too close to the end of the season to re-take it anymore. The irony though is that the driver who saved Sauber from the possibility of a similar fate was the one who was shown the door and had to vacate the other seat for Wehrlein.

  36. Michael (@freelittlebirds)
    27th January 2017, 22:55

    F1 is a great sport for any team to join – so much money to be won on a minimal investment. Barriers to entry are minimal and ROI is the highest. Not to mention, the SWAN factor (sleep well at night) …

    Plus, you can really excel at it – just look at what McLaren, Honda, and Alonso have accomplished over the past few years… All newcomers to the sport and what a fantastic entry that was, right?

    The 1st thing Liberty needs to do is salvage Manor cause they will not see another team for the next 10 years…

    1. funny thing is, people think it will change because someone different is managing it.

      its kind of ironic, to watch a whole bunch of people who believe in ‘rules’ and ‘class’ commiserating over the legacy of a system which abhors competition.

      maybe one day people will realize that they are also responsible, and that going along to get along really only ends up one way :) Diversity wins, and diversity does not exist with in F1, just the same old archaic culture that continues to fester within Europe, to this day, from the ground up to the highest offices in the ‘lands’. Sad but true. Don’t be sad Manor lost it, Manor was never meant to be, Manor was always a half hearted commitment to trying to cover up what really ails a system that exploits ignorance of reality.

  37. I find it ironic that Manor Racing should collapse after the season where they looked like they properly belonged in F1. 2014 was more successful in terms of points scored and championship ranking but it was 2016 when they finally became competitive enough to fight with some established constructors like Renault and Sauber.

    It is a miracle that they lasted 7 years when you consider that they entered the sport under the conditions of a budget cap which never materialised. I will greatly miss their presence on the grid this coming season.

Comments are closed.