|
McLaren - How DoThey
Afford It?
report by Tony Cotton |
3.10.07
The news that McLaren are to be fined $100m for receiving information about
Ferrari technical details had the bizarre and certainly unintended effect
of raising sympathy for McLaren and Ron Dennis in all racing fans but the
most fanatical Tifosi.
Whether a spontaneous whip-round for the Ronster will occur in paddocks
throughout the country remains to be seen, but I thought it might be interesting
to have a look at how well McLaren can afford the fine.
To do so I requested copies of the accounts of McLaren Group Limited and
McLaren Racing Limited from Companies House. Obviously, Group is the holding
company and its accounts summarise everything that goes on in the Grey Empire.
Racing is the F1 division which runs the Grand Prix team.
Under company law, accounts have to be at Companies House within 10 months
of the year end (December) so the latest on file are December 2005. Nonetheless
they make (to a breadhead) interesting reading.
The opening line of the Group accounts is "McLaren's strategy continue
to be dominated by our vision and passion for excellence and to be the best
in everything we do." What a pity then that the standard of English
usage in the accounts would, in my days at a Wolverhampton Comprehensive,
have had the teacher's red pen into overdrive. Not only is the apostrophe
ignored in "Manufacturers' Championship", but the cash performance,
of which more later, is described as "credible". In a set of audited
accounts, I hope it is, because credible means believable. I think they
mean creditable.
The "passion for excellence" is also reflected in the Racing accounts
where a typo multiplied the amounts purchased from Mercedes by 1,000, so
Ron Dennis had to sign a special declaration about the error a month after
filing the accounts. Wouldn't you have loved to be in the room when he was
told he had to do this? And as an ex-auditor, how sorry am I for the partner
at KPMG, the bean-counters who should have spotted it, especially in their
first year as auditor? As I can have a good guess how much that partner
gets paid, not at all sorry, as it happens....
As most people know, McLaren Group was owned by DaimlerChrysler (or WhateverThey'reCalledThisWeek)
40%, Ron Dennis 30% and TAG 30%, but in January 2007, the Bahrain Mumtalakat
Holding Company, a wholly owned company of the Kingdom of Bahrain, acquired
a 30% stake in McLaren Group. The shareholding structure of the Group is
now 40% DaimlerChrysler, 30% Mumtalakat Holding Company, 15% Ron Dennis
and 15% TAG Group (Holdings) SA. In other words Ron and Mansour weighed
in 15% apiece. For the confused, Mumtalakat is not the same as Ferrari part-owner
Mubadala which is wholly-owned by the Abu Dhabi Government.
McLaren Racing Limited
Bearing in mind that this is 2 years ago, the money floating around in
F1 is astounding. I'm not surprised that former Clubmans and failed Formula
2 racer Max Mosley decided that if the penalty had to be proportionate
to the income, $100m sounded about right.
In 2005 McLaren Racing earned £113m. £41m came from Mercedes
and the rest from other sponsors - principally Reemtsa, the company behind
the West brand - and the mysterious F1 prize/travel fund. The accounts
don't include anything for "free" "Mercedes" engines
as the amount isn't easily determinable.
Racing made a profit before tax of £3.2m, which is quite impressive,
except that £10m of it came from an "exceptional settlement
of a dispute with a supplier" - wonder who/what that was? In 2004
they made £2.2m, but £21m came from "exceptional non-recurring
income in relation to sponsorship agreements". So ignoring exceptional
items, McLaren lost £6.7m in 2005 and £19m in 2004 - not so
impressive. However, the capitalist lackeys who draft accouting standards
don't require Group charges to be disclosed, so these windfalls may have
been sucked up by Group.
Turning to how much Racing own, their net assets are £20m, so a
£50m fine will hit them hard. Bluntly, if they were a stand alone
company and they haven't earned a big surplus in 2006, it would send them
into insolvency. Of their assets, £5.2m is in as the cost of "historic
racing cars" which are estimated to be worth much more than this
sum. A further £18.2m is in "racing car development costs"
- the cost of developing the 2006 car. This wasn't good value for money
because it was one of their least successful for years, failing to win
a single race.
Racing also owed £48.7m to Group companies - so if something happens
at the top company it's the end for Racing. On top of that, they guaranteed
Group's 2005 bank loans of £69.2m.
Looking at the accounts in detail, directors' emoluments is always interesting.
The highest paid director got £4.4m, in 2004 £6.7m. A little
deduction shows that this can't be Ron Dennis, so it was probably Adrian
Newey - not bad for a wizzkid with a Rotoring and a pair of compasses
(only kidding Ade - massive respec!) Staying in the same part of the accounts,
there are 538 people (!) employed by McLaren Racing, earning £36.6m.
That works out at an average of £51k for each employee!
Wonder how long it'll be before they start getting in former Eastern bloc
designers and mechanics?
McLaren Group Limited
The funding is in the top company, as always. The net assets of the holding
company (i.e. - what the Group is worth) are, at 2005, £110m. The
Group was probably worth, if you were to sell it, much more than this
in 2005, but with the action of the FIA last week, it may be worth much
less. Such is the power of Bernie and Max (why does that sound so much
more sinister than "Max and Bernie"?)
The Group's biggest asset was its gin palace, a.k.a. McLaren Technology
Centre, which looks as though it cost around £200m.
Elsewhere in the accounts, the borrowings (bank loans and overdrafts)
show up as £71m (2004 - £105m). The cash generation of the
Group seems to be around £35m a year, which means that to find a
£50m fine today they may have to borrow. I've heard Northern Rock
do a good line in mortgages....
In answer to the big question, the highest paid Group director earns £2.4m.
I can only guess that's Ron. The other staff outside the race team struggle
by on an average of £39k per annum. I say send food parcels to Woking!
Of course, the cash generation really lies elsewhere in the Group, outside
the F1 team. McLaren Group reported a profit of £8.9m in 2005. Of
this, £11.8m came from Motor Vehicle Manufacturing - the profit
from the £111m paid by Mercedes to glue a body kit (and other mods)
onto 652 otherwise harmless SLs to form a sort of X-pack Mercedes and
thereby create the Mercedes-Benz McLaren SLR, once described as the world's
only boring Supercar. Only £133k of sales and a loss of £42k
comes from "race circuits" - you remembered they still own Lydden
didn't you? Originally bought with thoughts of it becoming their own Fiorano,
local residents soon put the kybosh on any idea of running unsilenced
F1 cars round there. It's now leased out and hosts club racing and track
days.
Conclusion
£50m isn't petty cash for a company the size of
McLaren. It will hit them hard. Max Mosley's idea that it will come from
existing, current year sponsorship or from next year's regular sponsorship
is naïve. My guess is that they will have to borrow, and that the
level of spending on car development will continue. Whether this is what
Max had in mind must be left to speculation. Of course, this is academic
because DaimlerChrysler cannot afford to see them founder, or even fail.
Click here
to return to the Ferrari Happenings page.
|
|
|
|
|
Merecedes
Benz's representative Norbert Haug (left) with TAG's owner Mansour
Ojeh (right) |
|
|
|
In
2005 tab maker Reemtsa coughed up big time |
|
|
|
McLaren
racing have £5.2m in old racing cars
|
|
|
|
£18.2m
went in developing the unsuccessful MP4/21 |
|
|
|
In
2005 did Ade (left) draw £4.4m and Ron (right) "only"
£2.4m? |
|
|
|
McLaren
Technology Centre is the Group's biggest single asset. Shame they
got the wrong sponsor |
|
|
|
£11.8m
came from making X-pack Mercs |
|
|
Owning
Lydden Hill generated a loss of of £42k |
|
|
|
American
actress Mercedes Mccambridge - of no relevance, but it's interesting
what Google chucks out |
|
|
|
|
pics
by Reuters, XPB, LAT, Sutton, Gordon's, Google Earth & unknown |
|
|