Richard Branson (Virgin) to save Honda together with Adrian Reynard?

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

21st February 2009, 09:03
I am evil Homer

I'd guess it depends on the extra money....does anyone know if Branson's "green fuel" idea is being developed with anyone? After all, if Petrobras came in on that or were already the partner it would smooth the way for extra money and place Senna in a prime position for a seat.
21st February 2009, 11:43
Malbec

Quote:

Originally Posted by ioan

I'm not sure this is how it would be.
If GM and Chrysler folds than the others, who are producing cheaper and better cars will surely have a better market than before.
Sure suppliers will have to cut back or some of them will close, but as long as one car manufacturer stays also their suppliers will stay alive. And I doubt that people are suddenly thinking about walking hundreds of miles instead of uying a car.

IMO we should not exaggerate things.

Sure this crisis is nasty, but we still need plenty of products in order to live our lives, and those who produce the products with the best price/quality will survive, which is the right thing IMO.

Nothing is being exaggerated I'm afraid.

I accept your point about good products surviving, but that logic only applies in the long term once everything has died down.

Your point about a bigger market for the surviving car makers isn't quite valid as there are huge stocks of unsold cars from GM, Ford and Chrysler. If one of them goes bust the liquidators will release that stock onto the market at hugely discounted prices to get cash.

Thats why Honda and Toyota stocks plummeted through the floor when the big Three went to the US government for a bailout. If one of them folds, the Japanese stand to suffer. Why buy a Camry or Accord for 20% off if a GM or Chrysler is yours for 60% off?

Regarding the suppliers approximately 60% of the suppliers to Japanese and German makers in the US also rely on GM and Chrysler. How do you think those suppliers will do when they lose 40% of their custom, and thats after the already reduced demand there is for car parts?

The car makers haven't seen the worst of it yet, 80% of BMWs are sold in the US and UK on credit and a lot of them are returning to BMW worth a considerable lot less than promised. Thats a timebomb waiting to happen.

Don't get me wrong, the best will still be around after all the dust settles but there's a lot of pain on the way. Spending millions of F1 really isn't going to be a priority for anyone in the next few years.

And today I hear Branson comment that F1 as it is isn't quite right for him. Its probably posturing before his bid but I don't think we should assume he's that interested in Honda.
21st February 2009, 13:01
DexDexter

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dylan H

Nothing is being exaggerated I'm afraid.

I accept your point about good products surviving, but that logic only applies in the long term once everything has died down.

Your point about a bigger market for the surviving car makers isn't quite valid as there are huge stocks of unsold cars from GM, Ford and Chrysler. If one of them goes bust the liquidators will release that stock onto the market at hugely discounted prices to get cash.

Thats why Honda and Toyota stocks plummeted through the floor when the big Three went to the US government for a bailout. If one of them folds, the Japanese stand to suffer. Why buy a Camry or Accord for 20% off if a GM or Chrysler is yours for 60% off?

Regarding the suppliers approximately 60% of the suppliers to Japanese and German makers in the US also rely on GM and Chrysler. How do you think those suppliers will do when they lose 40% of their custom, and thats after the already reduced demand there is for car parts?

The car makers haven't seen the worst of it yet, 80% of BMWs are sold in the US and UK on credit and a lot of them are returning to BMW worth a considerable lot less than promised. Thats a timebomb waiting to happen.

Don't get me wrong, the best will still be around after all the dust settles but there's a lot of pain on the way. Spending millions of F1 really isn't going to be a priority for anyone in the next few years.

And today I hear Branson comment that F1 as it is isn't quite right for him. Its probably posturing before his bid but I don't think we should assume he's that interested in Honda.

Are you sure that people are willing to buy old-fashioned, gasoline-eating cars whose manufacturer has collapsed, no matter what the prices are? Spare parts and maintenance issues will come into picture here. Maybe Americans are different, but on a global scale a good example is Swedish Saab, part of GM. I read a story in a Swedish newspaper which suggested that Saab retailers haven't managed to sell ANY cars at all in the last weeks because the future of the brand is so uncertain.
21st February 2009, 14:41
Bagwan

Quote:

Originally Posted by acescribe

To get the thread back on track....

Sir Richard Branson was a studio guest on BBC News this morning, mainly to talk about 25 years of Virgin Atlantic Airways but he was asked about the Honda team and he said said very little, only that if "F1 were to use greener fuels and be more cost effective for the likes of the Virgin brand he might be interested".....?!

As ever, a businessman keeping his cards close to his chest but the clock is ticking surely..?

The fuel is key to the bid , it seems .
Is Branson clever or what ?

He'll run his entry , and sell green fuel to the lot of them before long .

He's also a guy who could negotiate the FOTA money distribution issue , before even being a member , and that may be the "cost effective" aspect to which he was referring .
21st February 2009, 17:13
truefan72

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dylan H

Woah, stop giving Fry superhero powers.

Super Aguri owed Honda $100 million on the promise that they would be repaid by sponsors that never materialised. Guess what? Honda lost patience and pulled the plug. Fry had nothing to do with it.

Fry had everything to do with it, even before the "convenient" situation of owed money came up (which could have been remedied) Fry was instigating actions detrimental to the Super Aguri Team.
1. Limiting parts that were scheduled to come to them
2. Making overtures to the Honda bosses to drop SA
3. Undermining their in-season testing
4. severely limiting their options in resolving their debt

He effectively strangled the team, then turned around and made his case to Honda to dismiss them. As I recall, he was also in charge of making decisions regarding their future, potential sponsors and buyers, and if I remember well, he set up obstacles in each case to drive away sponsors and/or buyers.

The man is a class-A jerk who must have some photos of Honda execs somewhere to keep his employment. He has done absolutely nothing for them the last couple of years and will go down in history as bringing down 2 F1 teams in a span 1 calendar year, out of sheer incomptence, conniving and obtuse jealousy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dylan H

As for funding a team just to keep a Japanese driver on the grid, this is Honda, a company that finds it nice if there is one on the grid but has never given much of a toss if there wasn't either. Autosport which is the source of much of this nonsense about Sato, Super Aguri and Honda is showing its ignorance of the Japanese market I'm afraid, Sato never was that big over there outside the hardcore F1 fan market. Certainly not worth spending $100 million on to keep in F1. If Honda was that desperate to keep him they wouldn't have sacked him in the first place would they.

How about keeping a team with a winning formula, strong public support, cult like following, fan favorite, clear example of operating successfully on a budget, and popular drivers.

No, sounds too reasonable. Instead we will drop $300 million on a car and team that's a dud. With unmotivated drivers, shoddy management and lackluster performance.

Sounds reasonable to me. LOL

IMO funding super Aguri was the best F1 investment Honda made, and clearly going down the road they did has proven to be a monumental error. Most decisions like this indicate useless political machinations and have very little to do with achievement and common sense.
21st February 2009, 18:49
Malbec

Quote:

Originally Posted by truefan72

Fry had everything to do with it, even before the "convenient" situation of owed money came up (which could have been remedied) Fry was instigating actions detrimental to the Super Aguri Team.
1. Limiting parts that were scheduled to come to them
2. Making overtures to the Honda bosses to drop SA
3. Undermining their in-season testing
4. severely limiting their options in resolving their debt

He effectively strangled the team, then turned around and made his case to Honda to dismiss them. As I recall, he was also in charge of making decisions regarding their future, potential sponsors and buyers, and if I remember well, he set up obstacles in each case to drive away sponsors and/or buyers.

The man is a class-A jerk who must have some photos of Honda execs somewhere to keep his employment. He has done absolutely nothing for them the last couple of years and will go down in history as bringing down 2 F1 teams in a span 1 calendar year, out of sheer incomptence, conniving and obtuse jealousy.

He must be one powerful capable man to keep Honda in his thrall for so long, manipulating their decisions regarding Super Aguri his way, filtering sponsors and potential buyers (Don't you think blue chip companies would simply contact Honda directly and blow the whistle if they thought Fry was doing something dodgy).

Why also disregard his earlier success turning BAR around, signing Rubens (ok debatable as to whether that was good) and Ross Brawn? Are they a little inconvenient to fit in?

If you also honestly believe he is behind Honda pulling out of F1 then really there's no helping you either.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think he's God's gift to F1 either but this simpleminded and one dimensional demonisation is something I find rather infantile.

Quote:

Originally Posted by truefan72

How about keeping a team with a winning formula, strong public support, cult like following, fan favorite, clear example of operating successfully on a budget, and popular drivers.

No, sounds too reasonable. Instead we will drop $300 million on a car and team that's a dud. With unmotivated drivers, shoddy management and lackluster performance.

Sounds reasonable to me. LOL

IMO funding super Aguri was the best F1 investment Honda made, and clearly going down the road they did has proven to be a monumental error. Most decisions like this indicate useless political machinations and have very little to do with achievement and common sense.

Really? So where did the Super Aguri car come from? Did they design it themselves? No. Were they going to be able to carry on using copied cars? No. Were they paying their own way? No. Why carry on paying for a team with no future according to the regulations at the time?

Why fund a team that also takes the glory away from your named team? Why not restructure the team that actually designs the cars so it does a better job? Why not recruit someone like Ross Brawn and other designers and focus all the effort into one team?
21st February 2009, 19:30
Malbec

Quote:

Originally Posted by DexDexter

Are you sure that people are willing to buy old-fashioned, gasoline-eating cars whose manufacturer has collapsed, no matter what the prices are? Spare parts and maintenance issues will come into picture here. Maybe Americans are different, but on a global scale a good example is Swedish Saab, part of GM. I read a story in a Swedish newspaper which suggested that Saab retailers haven't managed to sell ANY cars at all in the last weeks because the future of the brand is so uncertain.

Sorry missed your post. I don't know to be honest, but I suspect any liquidator will do whatever it takes to convert the unsold stock into cash, even if it takes shipping the cars elsewhere (ie to Oz or the Middle East that like US cars) and dump them there.

In the UK I believe that all the MG-Rovers were finally sold when the company went bust and the suppliers are quite happy to keep making parts, after all they still get paid from the customers, probably a more reliable source of income than any soon-to-be-bankrupt maker.
21st February 2009, 21:56
ioan

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dylan H

I accept your point about good products surviving, but that logic only applies in the long term once everything has died down.

I don't agree, if everything died as you say than nothing would have survived.

I doubt everything will come to a full stop as no one would get anything out of that.
The system needs a heavy revision but it can continue to go forward.
21st February 2009, 22:05
ioan

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dylan H

Thats why Honda and Toyota stocks plummeted through the floor when the big Three went to the US government for a bailout. If one of them folds, the Japanese stand to suffer. Why buy a Camry or Accord for 20% off if a GM or Chrysler is yours for 60% off?

Regarding the suppliers approximately 60% of the suppliers to Japanese and German makers in the US also rely on GM and Chrysler. How do you think those suppliers will do when they lose 40% of their custom, and thats after the already reduced demand there is for car parts?

The European and Japanese constructors have a market of their own, free of any american counterparts and will survive just fine when the GM and Chrysler go down.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dylan H

The car makers haven't seen the worst of it yet, 80% of BMWs are sold in the US and UK...

That seems to much to me. There are plenty of BMW's in Europe and Rusia too.
EU is half a billion people even without the UK, that is almost double of the USA, and if you count Russia it well over it.
If 20% of the BMW only are sold in EU and Rusia + Asia, and I still see plenty of them everywhere, than 80% in a much smaller market would mean that the density of BMW's in the US and UK is 10 times higher than in Europe, which I can't believe.

Maybe they sold in the US 70-80% of the Z8 or some other very expensive roadster that European's won't buy for practical reasons. But 80% of their production is difficult to believe.
22nd February 2009, 09:37
Malbec

Quote:

Originally Posted by ioan

The European and Japanese constructors have a market of their own, free of any american counterparts and will survive just fine when the GM and Chrysler go down.

Try actually reading my original post. I've explained why the Japanese and European makers will be hit if GM or Chrysler go down. Its to do with suppliers falling and the market being awash with cheap GM/Chrysler stock being liquidated. I haven't read anything in your posts to explain why industry forecasters have got it wrong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ioan

That seems to much to me. There are plenty of BMW's in Europe and Rusia too.
EU is half a billion people even without the UK, that is almost double of the USA, and if you count Russia it well over it.
If 20% of the BMW only are sold in EU and Rusia + Asia, and I still see plenty of them everywhere, than 80% in a much smaller market would mean that the density of BMW's in the US and UK is 10 times higher than in Europe, which I can't believe.

Maybe they sold in the US 70-80% of the Z8 or some other very expensive roadster that European's won't buy for practical reasons. But 80% of their production is difficult to believe.

No you misquoted me. 80% of BMWs sold in the UK and the US are sold on credit. I didn't say 80% of BMWs are sold to the UK and US. The rest of my post explains why that is a problem. I forgot to add that now credit is more expensive it means that far fewer people can afford to buy on credit too, further cutting sales.

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page