|
The above post agrees with what my uncle told me. He's chief technician at the local Rover dealer, and has been told to under no circumstances carry out any warranty work, unless they get written confirmation from the customer that they understand that they will have to pay.
|
What about the Sale of Goods act and the laws of contract?
Rover may walk away, but I don't think the supplying dealer can!
--
Roger. (Costa del Sol, España)
|
|
|
|
Cat Logistics, which claims that the supply of parts should be safe. "....if we can't resource the part there, we'll get the tool and take it somewhere else to have it made."
Of course Cat don't own the tool, Rover / the administrators do so that statement may be difficult to back up!
|
Of course Cat don't own the tool, Rover / the administrators do so that statement may be difficult to back up!
But who else is going to pay more than scrap value for the tools?
|
|
They could put them on eBay.
|
They could put them on eBay.
Just had a brain wave - why don't they put Rover on Ebay - highest bidder wins!
|
Just had a brain wave - why don't they put Rover on Ebay - highest bidder wins!
Does Ebay allow negative bids?
(i.e. seller pays cash to have a liability taken off her hands)
|
|
|
|
Only bidders with a positive feedback of 10 and over can bid on this item?!
|
|
Can anyone explain to me what the 'deputation' to Downing Street can possibly hope to achieve (except their pictures in the media)?
|
Can anyone explain to me what the 'deputation' to Downing Street can possibly hope to achieve
They hope to demonstrate the first successful operation of a time machine by taking the entire country back 30 years to 1975.
With fortune, they will be partially successful and will only reach 1979. :-)
|
With fortune, they will be partially successful and will only reach 1979. :-)
Back to Blondie having two number hits in the UK singles chart? Or were you thinking of Gloria Gaynor? ;-)
|
"Call Me" the SAIC re-mix?
|
"Call Me" the SAIC re-mix?
Nice one!
The Top 20 singles for 79 offer a lot of relevant possibilities.
"I don't like mondays" (Longbridge version "I don't like mon, tues, wed, thu, fri ...")
Cliff Richard / "We don't talk any more"
Lena Martell / "One day at a time"
The Bee Gees / "Tragedy"
Tho #18 probly isn't relevant: Gary Numan / "Cars"
... but Abba's Chiquitita seems ripe for a very minor rewrite:
"MG-Rover, tell me what's wrong
You're enchained by your own sorrow
In your eyes there is no hope for tomorrow
How I hate to see you like this
There is no way you can deny it
I can see that you're oh so sad, so quiet
|
V good!
How about a bit of Aretha Franklin and "Rescue Me"
"Rescue me
Oh take me in your arms
Rescue me
I want your tender charms
'Coz I'm lonely and I'm blue
I need you and your love too"
|
Oh dear me.
I think I'd rather stick to Blondie, please.
|
Last one (from me anyway):
Build me up Buttercup by The Foundations:
"Why do you build me up (build me up) Buttercup, baby
Just to let me down (let me down) and mess me around
And then worst of all (worst of all) you never call, baby
When you say you will (say you will) but I love you still
I need you (I need you) more than anyone, darlin'
You know that I have from the start
So build me up (build me up) Buttercup, don't break my heart"
|
Oh dear me. I think I'd rather stick to Blondie, please.
Lots of MG-Rover stuff in Blondie:
"Backfired, your plan, your plan backfired"
"One way or another, I'm gonna lose ya'"
"Don't move too slow 'cause the man from Mars is through with cars"
"Don't go be bad 'cause you been had/Don't go away sad/Don't go away mad,/Just go away!"
"Once I had a love and it was gas/Soon turned out, had a heart of glass"
|
How about Roy Orbison:--
It's (R)Over.
Golden days before they end ___
|
"How about a bit of Aretha Franklin and "Rescue Me""
Typical, wrong choice of Rover rescuer (again) - try Fontella Bass!!!
|
I feel very sorry for the families of the Rover workers but something annoyed me before.
One of the wives petitioned Downing Street and said something along the lines of,
"Rover can make fantastic cars up there with the best of the world."
I don't want to sound unconstructive but is she on about the right company?
Apart from the silly little companies, I can't think of a single car (new) that I want less than a Rover. (75 excluded).
Unhelpful I know but when has anything I've said been anything else?
--
Adam
|
Apart from the silly little companies, I can't think of a single car (new) that I want less than a Rover. (75 excluded).
Rover 25 or Hyundai Accent?
Rover 45 or Fiat Stilo?
|
Like I said. Even though the Accent is the epitomy of blandness, I'd have to take that over the 25.
Stilo or 45? Ok it's a Fiat but still no contest. That's how against 45's I am. That's how against Rover's I am.
--
Adam
|
£100K in unpaid warranty claims and sales incentives per dealer (on average..) etc - now that's gonna make a big hole in Dealer accounts.....
The Network must be very jittery at the moment...
--
groups.msn.com/honestjohn - Pictures say a thousand words.....
|
Whoever it was wanted a 75 V8 think they only need to hang on a week or two and they should get one for around £5,000.
Looks to me like existing stock will have to be sold on at whatever price can be had possibly at no reserve auctions then as far as the dealers are concerned for car sales thats it.
Repair work will still roll in whilst the parts last...
|
It was me...and if I could get one for £5K I would definately be happy.....until it brokedown!
Could HJ, give us all any clues as to how he sees the prices for new Rovers? i.e.What would he pay for a V8?
|
The list is endless:
Come on Rover - Shania Twain
Phoenix from the Flames - Robbie Williams
How to be Dead - Snow Patrol
Take the Money and Run - Terrorvision
It Wont be Long - Alison Moyet
The Night I Fell Asleep at the Wheel - Barenaked Ladies
End of a Century - Blur
Behind the Wheel - Depeche Mode
This Train Don't Stop There Anymore - Elton John
Temporary One - Fleetwood Mac
Disappear - INXS
Against All Odds - Phil Collins
Stuck in a Moment You Can't Get Out Of - U2
etc. etc.
|
|
They hope to demonstrate the first successful operation of a time machine by taking the entire country back 30 years to 1975.
I was under the impression they already had!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PWC was only stopped from laying off 5,300 workers when the Government handed over a £6.5 million loan to pay their wages for a week, without clearing it with the European Commission.
It seems to me that if the average wage of the workforce is in excess if £1000 per week its hardly surprising that the company isn't making a profit.
--
I read often, only post occasionally
|
|
I noticed that too, but I guess you have to take into account all the white collar workers (not everyone works on the assembly line). It does still seem very high!
|
Deja Vu?
DTI quicklinks
Rt. Hon. Stephen Byers - Former Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Dec 1998 - Jun 2001)
"Extending Opportunity and Excellence in Manufacturing"
AEEU Conference on Manufacturing Britain 2001, West Midlands.
Friday, March 16, 2001
Other speeches
It's exactly a year ago that BMW announced that its intended sale of Rover and the potential closure of Longbridge.
Today I want to look at the lessons learned from Longbridge. About the importance of manufacturing and of an active industrial and regional policy. And to announce new measures for the car industry and a major package of support to strengthen the West Midlands economy.
One year on, it's useful to take stock of where we are at Longbridge. And what could have been.
One year ago people were predicting meltdown at Longbridge.
There were forecasts that the Alchemy bid could cut Rover's workforce to as low as 1,500, with production cut from 230,000 to as few as 50,000.
We faced the threat of closure of the Longbridge plant, with the loss of 9,000 direct jobs and 15,000 jobs in the supply chain and the wider economy.
The day after BMW's announcement, I came to Longbridge. I met the workforce, the unions and the management.
Understandably there was a sense of anger. Of frustration. And of helplessness.
The decisions taken by BMW in relation to Rover showed that in a time of globalisation we face two choices - a choice between uncontrolled change, forced by the markets and commercial pressures. Or a process of economic reform that delivers economic efficiency and social justice in which people and their communities can be genuine partners in change and not the innocent victims of change.
I was always clear. A Labour Government will always back the second option.
Some said there was no role for government. We should stand to one side. Do nothing, leave everything to the market.
But there were 24,000 good reasons why we didn't turn away. And that was the 24,000 jobs at stake.
That is why we brought together John Towers and his Phoenix consortium with BMW. That is why, the day after BMW announced its decision to sell Longbridge, I set up a Task Force, involving all the partners concerned with regenerating the areas most affected.
As a result of the decisions taken, and the hard work of many people in this region, the situation is very different one year on.
There are still 7,500 people employed at Longbridge - 5,500 at MG Rover and a further 2,000 at Longbridge Powertrain.
There have been job losses at Longbridge - around 1,500 overall. The huge majority have been voluntary and the Employment Service has been on hand to help with retraining and finding new work.
At the same time, the Task Force and local partners have helped to secure new investment to the region. Including Marconi's decision last year to build a new communications headquarters in the West Midlands, creating 2,200 new jobs.
There is now an air of optimism at Longbridge.
MG Rover have achieved sales of 203,000 in the last year - beating its target of 200,000. Achieved despite disruption caused by the sale, the associated negative publicity, and the move of Rover 75 production from Cowley to Longbridge.
And at the Geneva motorshow recently we saw new MG Rover products which will increase production: the launch of the Rover 75 estate and three new MG models.
I don't think even the most optimistic among us would have predicted this one year ago.
This is a tribute to the work of John Towers and the Phoenix Consortium. To local MPs like Richard Burden. And above all to the resilience and commitment of the Longbridge workforce and the local community.
A year ago some commentators claimed that the situation at Longbridge showed that manufacturing was no longer important for the UK economy.
I have always rejected that view.
A strong manufacturing sector is a vital and integral part of the economy.
It accounts for about a fifth of our national income with almost £150 billion of output per year.
Manufacturing employs around 4 million people directly and indirectly it employs two and half million in service sector jobs.
Increasingly, manufacturing involves complex processes to make high value added products, which are a source of sustained competitive advantage
Advances in manufacturing - whether new goods or new processes - can lead to productivity improvements across the whole economy.
It includes some of our most innovative businesses investing heavily in research and development.
Just look at aerospace, where employment has increased by a fifth - nearly fourteen thousand extra jobs - between 1998 and 2000.
We're seeing significant investment in other sectors too. Including cars, where last month there were announcements of new investment of £240 million by Ford at Bridgend and £200 million by General Motors at Ellesmere Port. Coming on the heels of the earlier announcements by Nissan and Toyota, this is further evidence that the UK remains a good place for the car industry to locate.
The AEEU and its members have, of course, made an important contribution to this success - which reflects the flexibility and skills of our workforce and a big improvement in productivity.
In the UK we have world class companies, plants and workers. We are world leaders in some sectors.
But we do need to do better. To extend manufacturing excellence. To raise productivity, innovation, and skills in all sectors.
And we all know that some industries are facing real pressures.
Global markets and the introduction of new technology mean that this is a period of major business change and restructuring.
All sectors have to adapt to compete in the future.
Change for business is nothing new but the pace of change can be threatening for industry and people.
As an active, enabling Government our task is to equip people to adapt to change, to help open up new opportunities for business and enable established industries to modernise.
The need for this new approach to industrial policy was clear in relation to Longbridge last year. It was clear that we had to move beyond the dogmatic distinctions that were made in the past.
When government was either interventionist - dictating to businesses and often standing in the way of growth and prosperity - or simply relied on market forces and a laissez-faire approach which didn't serve the national interest.
The plain truth is that businesses should run business.
But there are steps that governments can take to help create an environment that allows business to prosper, that give people the opportunity to realise their full potential.
In this world of great complexity and rapid change, we need an active industrial policy. Based on innovation, enterprise and skills, on maximising the potential of all parts of Britain and on exploiting the talents of all our people.
First and foremost industry needs economic stability.
For years we have had violent swings of the economic cycle.
Ten years ago inflation was over 8%. Interest rates were over 13%.
One million manufacturing jobs were lost in the early 1990s.
This Government will not return to those days.
Almost four years ago now, we reformed the whole basis of economic policy-making.
We took tough decisions early on to make the Bank of England independent, to put in place a proper fiscal framework, and to pay back the national debt.
As a result, inflation is the lowest for decades, and is the lowest in Europe. Long-term UK interest rates are around their lowest levels for over 35 years, converging with those of Germany.
I fully recognise the concerns of some sectors of manufacturing about the sterling-euro exchange rate.
Some have argued that joining the single currency would end all our difficulties.
Our policy is clear.
We remain committed to joining a successful single currency in principle. In practice the five economic tests must be met.
As the Chancellor said in October 1997 "the potential benefits are obvious - in terms of trade, transparency of costs and currency stability."
So in principle we would join but the economic conditions have to be right because this is essential to membership being in the national interest. Only then would we make a recommendation to the British people to join.
We are committed early in the next Parliament to assess whether or not these tests have been met. If they have been met then the final decision will be for the British people in a referendum.
That is our policy - it has not been changed and will not change.
It is a policy which is understood by business. It is clear to me that had we ruled out joining then investment decisions which have recently been made would not have been taken in favour of the United Kingdom.
The economic stability we have achieved now gives us a once in a generation opportunity. To build for the future on firm foundations. To establish lasting economic success.
As we cut the costs of economic failure - cutting public debt, reducing unemployment, and with low inflation - we are freeing up the finance necessary to invest in the infrastructure and high quality public services that our country so badly needs.
This means that, without risking our hard won stability, we are now investing in reforms to promote innovation and entrepreneurship and support dynamic manufacturing industry.
To be successful in this fast moving, dynamic economy, companies must innovate. Not just in products but processes, marketing and management.
We can not try to compete on labour costs and raw materials alone. We succeed when we add value to our products.
Employers and workers, together with their unions, need to work together to tackle these issues.
But Government also has a key role to play. A role which this Government takes very seriously.
That's why we will drive forward an active industrial policy.
To extend manufacturing excellence - investing in skills, making the most of new technology, supporting industries of the future, raising innovation in every region.
An industrial policy based on three clear steps.
First, putting in place the building blocks for the future.
We are boosting investment in UK science to ensure we remain at the cutting edge of research and that the science base is linked to industry. Over the next three years we are putting over £1 billion into science - on top of the £1.4 billion we have already invested.
We are investing in skills and training to ensure that the skills of our workforce meet the future needs of industry.
And we are investing £180 billion in the transport infrastructure industry needs to move goods quickly, efficiently and cleanly.
Second, we are creating a modern regulatory framework that drives innovation and encourages growth and increased productivity.
That means promoting competition, which provides a spur for firms to increase productivity.
And providing incentives for the sustained investment we need to improve productivity in manufacturing.
Enhanced capital allowances since 1997 and new tax credits to encourage investment and innovation have already saved business over £1 billion with a third of a billion pounds being saved by manufacturing.
In last week's Budget the Chancellor announced that we are now seeking views on a new tax credit aimed at boosting R&D and innovation in larger companies - particularly manufacturing businesses. This new credit is designed to complement the R&D tax credit for small companies introduced in April 2000.
And third, we are improving support for business. Providing world class, forward-looking business support for manufacturers to expand at home and overseas.
That's why my Department is working with a wide range of industry sectors to see how they can take advantage of the opportunities of e-commerce. To ensure that UK industry can reap the potential benefits of technological developments.
In sectors like aerospace, oil and gas, metals and chemicals we are supporting industry forum adaptation programmes, to enable industry to adopt best practice in production and supply chain management.
And in the car industry where today I can announce a major package of measures to help the industry modernise and compete.
We are providing £15 million towards the Foresight Vehicle Mobility programme, helping the industry develop safer, cleaner cars. And we are supporting a new industry initiative to set up a supply chain database to strengthen links between the car assembly and component supply parts of the sector.
These initiatives will help the industry to improve its competitive position and meet the challenges of the future. But in order to meet the challenges of the future, we need to do more.
That's why I am setting up a new industry led group to look at how, over the medium term, the vehicle industry's competitiveness will be improved.
Its job will be to come up with practical actions, not lots of analysis, and report to me in 6 months, not longer. Industry representatives and Government officials will work together on medium and long-term issues to actively promote more innovation and higher productivity in the car industry.
As we saw in relation to Longbridge, manufacturing is a regional issue. Its economic significance is greater in some regions than others. Some regions are still heavily dependent on particular industries or companies.
Manufacturing is less than 12% of GDP in London and around 16 per cent in the South East.
In contrast, here in the West Midlands manufacturing makes up over 29 per cent of the region's GDP. It represents 28% of regional GDP in the North East. And over 26 percent in the North West and Yorkshire and the Humber.
It is these regions which have the highest concentration of established industries. Industries which are facing the greatest restructuring. Which have the greatest need of modernisation and help in adapting to change.
As I announced at an AEEU seminar earlier this year, we are giving Regional Development Agencies in these regions additional funding to support innovation and enterprise.
Last week the Chancellor and Deputy Prime Minister announced challenging new targets for RDAs, including targets to raise productivity in their region and increase business innovation. And as from next year RDAs will have new flexibility to decide their own budget priorities to deliver these new targets.
Last month David Blunkett and I published a White Paper on enterprise, skills and innovation, in which we set out further measures to build regional capabilities - investing in skills, making the most of new technology, supporting industries of the future, raising innovation in every region.
Research and development is one of the key building blocks for business innovation and success. Yet there are significant variations in the levels of R&D across the country.
In 1997, investment by manufacturing business in R&D represented 9 per cent of gross value added in the South East, compared with around 2 per cent in Yorkshire and the Humber and the North East and just over 3 per cent in the West Midlands.
To help tackle this, in addition to the R&D tax credits I mentioned earlier, we will establish new University Innovation Centres to enable universities and businesses to collaborate on large scale research and development and boost levels of innovation and technology transfer. The first five involve companies such as BAe, Proctor & Gamble and Hewlett Packard.
And a network of Technology Institutes will provide advanced learning in IT and new technology, ensuring that people have the skills they need for the jobs of the future.
These initiatives will strengthen collaboration on cutting edge technology between universities and manufacturing industry.
But we need to be concerned not only with those industries at the leading edge.
We must also help more established industries to modernise and adapt to a changing world.
I announced last year that in each region we will establish a Manufacturing Centre of Excellence to respond to the needs of smaller manufacturing firms.
We will now build on that proposal to establish a new Manufacturing Advisory Service, providing practical, "hands on" help for smaller manufacturing firms who want to introduce world class manufacturing practices and technologies.
Here in the West Midlands we are complementing these initiatives with a package of measures, including proposals from the Rover Task Force, to modernise, diversify and regenerate the region?s economy.
I would first like to thank the Task Force members for all the good work they have done, especially Alex Stephenson and Advantage West Midlands who have led the Task force.
Last year I pledged £129 million to support good quality projects in the region, in the wake of BMW's decision to sell Rover.
Today I am announcing details of a £60 million package to support the main proposals from the Rover Task Force, which is the final part of this commitment.
Last year I said that we would support economic regeneration and job creation in the region. That's what this package is all about.
We will provide funding to set up a new regional automotive centre, providing a single location for the SMMT Industry Forum, and a showcase for West Midlands schools to encourage careers in engineering.
We are providing funds to boost apprenticeships in the region, and provide opportunities for those already working in the automotive industry to learn new skills.
Projects will also include schemes to encourage and assist businesses to research new market opportunities, develop new products, exploit new technology, and improve efficiency.
In addition, a number of projects are now being planned to support the potential development of three high-tech corridors in the region.
All these actions are aimed at modernising the automotive sector, and diversifying the economic base of the region, so that it can compete successfully with a world class workforce, and is not too reliant on one industry or a single employer
We need to build on the strengths and diversity of the West Midlands economy if we are to establish lasting economic success in the region.
This package of measures is designed to do exactly that.
We will help industry to adapt to change. To encourage the new industries of the future. And to help established industries modernise and compete in new markets.
Manufacturing matters to our country. Once the cradle of the industrial revolution, we can now be at the heart of the knowledge economy of the 21st century.
Across manufacturing, I believe that government, industry and trade unions learning from each other can meet the great challenge of change.
madf
|
|
Fascinating. Now get rid of it.
|
|
John Towers now claiming that he was never that interested but Byers talked him in to it and the business plan was done on the back of an envelope.
|
|
|
|
Rt. Hon. Stephen Byers - Former Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Dec 1998 - Jun 2001) "Extending Opportunity and Excellence in Manufacturing" AEEU Conference on Manufacturing Britain 2001, West Midlands.
Well found!
Does he have anything to add to this, I wonder?
|
Byers' reply Daily Torygraph again (I recommend registereing with their online website .. foc excellent search facility
tinyurl.com/45th8
I acted to save Rover supply chain jobs, says Byers
Reports by Christopher Hope, Business Correspondent (Filed: 14/04/2005)
Stephen Byers MP, the former trade secretary, yesterday insisted he had no regrets over his role in helping to broker the deal which saw collapsed car company MG Rover sold to the Phoenix Four five years ago.
Mr Byers has been criticised for his decision to support a sale of the Longbridge plant to four local businessmen - John Towers, Nick Stephenson, John Edwards and Peter Beale - rather than Jon Moulton's Alchemy Partners.
While Alchemy had planned to shut down the Rover production line and focus on the MG, with the loss of about 6,000 jobs, the Phoenix Four, who bought the company for just £10, promised to keep Rover going.
However, in the five years since then the four men have made up to £40m for themselves while MG Rover has lost hundreds of millions of pounds. Last Friday, MG Rover called in the administrator after takeover talks with China's Shanghai Automotive Industry Corporation failed.
Yesterday, in his first comments since the collapse, Mr Byers answered the following series of questions:
Telegraph: Mr Byers, why did you back the Towers bid for MG Rover in 2000? Do you regret your decision?
Stephen Byers MP: For these reasons I took my decision to support the Towers bid. The Towers bid was the only one which aimed to keep volume car manufacturing at Longbridge. Over the past five years over 6,000 people have been employed directly. The Alchemy bid would have cut the workforce to less than 2,000. The Towers bid also offered the best way forward for the supply chain. In 2000 it was estimated that around 25,000 people were employed in companies supplying goods and services to Longbridge. Since 2000 many in the supply chain, with the assistance of the Government, have had the time to diversify so that they are no longer solely dependent on Longbridge.
Had the Alchemy bid been successful there would have been no time for the supply chain to find new markets, putting at risk a large number of the 25,000 jobs in the supply chain.
T: Could the DTI have insisted on checks to stop the Phoenix Four making up to £40m from the loss-making car maker over the next five years?
SB: Phoenix did not receive any government funding for their deal with BMW. When no public money is involved the Government does not have the power to impose conditions on a commercial agreement entered into between two parties.
T: Do you feel responsible for MG Rover's problems now?
SB: The present problems primarily arise from the failure to conclude a deal with the Chinese company SAIC. At the time of the 2000 deal I made it clear that an alliance with a global partner was needed for Phoenix to have a long-term future.
T: Were you misled by the Phoenix Four in any way?
SB: Not to my knowledge.
T: What would you say to the MG Rover workforce facing the sack? Should the DTI let Longbridge close now?
SB: I know the Government is doing all it can to secure jobs and volume car manufacturing at Longbridge.
That is why it is working closely with the administrators and representatives of the workforce to achieve this objective.
madf
|
|
£25 million added to the bung. Should get us through to 6th May.
|
|
|
Thanks for that, madf,
One of Byers' answers caught my eye:
"In 2000 it was estimated that around 25,000 people were employed in companies supplying goods and services to Longbridge. Since 2000 many in the supply chain, with the assistance of the Government, have had the time to diversify so that they are no longer solely dependent on Longbridge."
If that's even partly true, it does suggest that the last five years have not been entirely wasted.
|
>> If that's even partly true, it does suggest that the last five years have not been entirely wasted.
It's a government press release, why should it be true? Did Yes Minister teach you nothing? ;-)
|
I read that as the suppliers have spotted a dead horse when they see one and off their own backs have done something else.
The government assistance went to Rover not the suppliers. Yes Minister indeed.
|
|
|
It's a government press release, why should it be true? Did Yes Minister teach you nothing? ;-)
Yes Minister taught me a lot, which I use in my regular dealings with govt.
One of the things I've learnt is that while it usually doesm't pay govt to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth, it definitely doesn't pay to tell complete porkies. The recipe is usually selective truth, with varying amounts of varnish -- just as commercial organisations do. (When did you last see a car-maker claiming that their new model is faster and more desirable, but that the ride is awaful and an awful lot of corners have been cut on build quality?)
That's what struck me about this one. In the midst of all the flannel, there is the claim that suppliers have been helped to use the last five years to prepare for the crunch. Even if they didn't get much help, it does seem to me that five years to prepare for the inevitable demise of (R)over must have been very useful for the component-makers.
|
|
|
|
Thanks for that, madf, One of Byers' answers caught my eye: "In 2000 it was estimated that around 25,000 people were employed in companies supplying goods and services to Longbridge. Since 2000 many in the supply chain, with the assistance of the Government, have had the time to diversify so that they are no longer solely dependent on Longbridge." If that's even partly true, it does suggest that the last five years have not been entirely wasted.
So 25,000 man year/years x 5 years. 125,000 man years employment then ::phut::
Or with Alchemy you had approximately 1/3rd the workforce and I guess the same proportion of suppliers, so 42,000 man years of employment.
Which assumes no growth for a stripped-down, lean and focused MG.
Then factor in the wasted R&D on the rwd 75, the CityRover and talks with SAIC.
I can't help but think Byers would have been better off a Sellers....
ND. Not moderating, just Alan having his say.
|
|
Don the moderating hat ND and make some sense out of the last but one line above. Tks in Adv. then delete this post. Phil I
|
|
|
So 25,000 man year/years x 5 years. 125,000 man years employment then ::phut::
Except that maybe it's not phut for the suppliers, if they have had time to drum up new business rather than being wholly reliant on (R)over.
I don't know what's happened to the suppliers, but it seems to me that five years with the writing on the wall should have been much better than the immediate axe they faced before the P4 takeover, and more than many other smallish suppliers get when the big comnpany folds.
No doubt somebody with access to the appropriate data will do an analysis of what happens to the suppliers -- it'll make intersting reading.
|
Don't tell me that Rover's demise would have been a complete surprise 5 years ago.
It's been a basket case for 30 years.
|
Don't tell me that Rover's demise would have been a complete surprise 5 years ago.
Surely in the late 90s, when it had BMW's backing and several new models on the way (R45, 75, MINI), it didn't look like it was going to immediately implode?
|
Surely in the late 90s, when it had BMW's backing and several new models on the way (R45, 75, MINI), it didn't look like it was going to immediately implode?
It still looked like a basket case.
The 45 was always an out of date car tarted up to look new. The early reviews of the 75 were not good, and anyone could see that its design appealed more to the old than to the young. And the new MINI was a BMW model from day one - it retailed through BMW dealers, NW.
|
>>The 45 was always an out of date car tarted up to look new
I wonder if the same thing would have been said if they changed the engine and certain electronic parts..45 is as 400/200 let down by mechanical/electrical components..Some of the problems in design go way back to austin/morris.You only need to work on one (if you are old enough)To notice differences.I would state though that Rover 200 series is still going strong.As with rover tourer..In most cases 200 series only ends up in scrap yard due to HGF/Head split/Ecu.ie cost to repair exceed cars worth. If looked after they go on for ages.The 200 series may be outdated but its cheap good ride economical.and takes a lot in boot.
--
Steve
|
>> Surely in the late 90s, when it had BMW's backing and >> several new models on the way (R45, 75, MINI), it didn't >> look like it was going to immediately implode? >> It still looked like a basket case. The 45 was always an out of date car tarted up to look new. The early reviews of the 75 were not good, and anyone could see that its design appealed more to the old than to the young. And the new MINI was a BMW model from day one - it retailed through BMW dealers, NW.
Sorry, you're right abt the 45: I meant the supposded successor to that car, the one which died when BMW left -- much was promised of it.
But the new MINI didn't go on sale until 2001. As far as I recall, it had been touted as a separate brand for a while, but according to the www.austin-rover.co.uk site, until the breakup in March 2000 Rover dealers expected to sell it. It didn't appear under BMW's wings until after the break-up.
|
>>Surely in the late 90s, when it had BMW's backing.........
And we were busy in Curitiba, Brasil buiilding a new plant to replace the UK one since it had been decided long before to close.
I don't understand how the government managed to maintain ignorance, everybody else knew. Except seemingly the employees and I guess they were relying on the government to tell them.
|
I am probably being extremely thick here, but are we (and Byers) really saying that he handed over Rover to Phoenix in the full knowledge that it would probably go bust in 5 years, in order that the suppliers would realise this and change their businesses to cope with this? And that he did this instead of preserving the core business of MG as a specialist (but smaller) manufacturer run by Alchemy? And that he did this without thinking of letting the 6000 present workers know so that they could get other jobs in the meantime? And that he did this and as a result they did not get the £50k redundancy money they would have got 5 years ago?
Or have I completely misread his statement?
|
|
Byers wasn't known as 'Bozo' for nothing.
|
Phil,
Its called re-writing history to make Byers look good (a difficult thing at the best of times).
Remember Winston Smith re-writing the news about the chocolate ration using his speakwrite machine?
Not double plus good.
|
|
I see in this morning's Daily Telegraph that several companies are interested in parts of the MG-Rover company but will not take them on because of the cost of redundancies, pensions and warranties. Something to do with the TUPE rules apparently.
|
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4447323.stm
"MG Rover's rescue deal collapses"
"Redundancy notices will be sent out to a "significant" number of MG Rover workers this weekend, the firm's administrators have said."
|
If BMW has handed over the MINI to MG Rover, do you really think it would have been the success it has been under BMW's brilliant marketing of it? ...
You can't just blame poor marketing though. A lot of people here are talking about MG Rover as if it were just the current name for British Leyland.
The present company is the rump left behind after Leyland commercial vehicles, Jaguar, Land Rover etc. had been sold off. The new Mini was just the last in a long line of products to be separated from the main business.
|
To reply to HJs point re MINI Marketing.
Yes I believe the MINI would have done just as well had it been sold by MGR. I don't perceive the marketing to be particularly brilliant as I believe the car sells itself. I have to say whoever designed it did a brilliant job of capturing some of the original mini's styling cues in a modern package.
I also detect signs of the usual 'Its british it must be rubbish' thinking here.
I'm not particularly well informed here but I rather remember the Rover 75 as being a BMW design whereas the MINI was largely designed in this country. I know a significant amount of the design work was carried out by the large auto consultants such as Ricardo.
I feel quite annoyed at the sad end which MGR has met, BL certainly made some dreadful cars but it is particularly unfortunate that everyone now considers them as Rover. When you consider what a world beater the Rover 2000 family of cars was in the 70's it is scarcely believable how things have ended
Superannuated Rocker
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
