What is it with MG Rover?
Discussion
Rover has never been a financial success to any degree. I certainly don't think the Government should be propping up the company with Tax payers money, albeit an interest free loan.
If a company makes good stuff, markets it effectively, controls it costs, looks after its employees and serves its customers it will survive and prosper. If it doesn't do at least most of the above, then let market forces do their stuff - because you can't fight the market, no matter how deep your pockets are.
It seems to me that the brand has a "slow lane" feel to it, morale appears low in the company an car designs seem 10 years old (to me) and the marketing seems to be vacant.
Perhaps it's just me, but if Rover were a real dog I think I'd be inclined to put it out of its misery.
If a company makes good stuff, markets it effectively, controls it costs, looks after its employees and serves its customers it will survive and prosper. If it doesn't do at least most of the above, then let market forces do their stuff - because you can't fight the market, no matter how deep your pockets are.
It seems to me that the brand has a "slow lane" feel to it, morale appears low in the company an car designs seem 10 years old (to me) and the marketing seems to be vacant.
Perhaps it's just me, but if Rover were a real dog I think I'd be inclined to put it out of its misery.
srebbe64 said:
Rover has never been a financial success to any degree. I certainly don't think the Government should be propping up the company with Tax payers money, albeit an interest free loan.
Fine line I am afraid. They will have put the old analysts on the job and worked out a few scenarios. Basically come up with a few "cost" options and worked out how much it will impact the economy, boost payments for unemployment and long term help for the area etc. Rather than take the hit later (and the political fall out), it makes sense to punt a bit of money to keep it running, or the deal at least....
However, there is a line at which you have to say "enough is enough" and stop funding it. But I dont think we have reached it yet. Just prudent to punt a bit for the moment - oh, and yes its an election....
los angeles said:
If their problems were "too deep to be solved" why did their current bosses (previously their old ones) take over the company? So they could increase their take home pay and vast bonuses when they sold it off for a good price? As ever, it's the non-profit participating workers who get shafted, the ones who took the wage cuts and long hours to keep the company afloat.
I don't think I will disagree with you there on the current bosses of MG Rover.
You will remember that at the time there was another bid on the table-they were planning to scale Rover down and concentrate more on sports cars-but everyone thought the bid by the current lot was preferable.
greenie said:
Quite simply-General Election-Birmingham marginals-Government money.
Both Rover and the Chinese company know this and will use it to their advantage during the negotiations.
I absolutely agree. The Chinese also know that they're the only player in town, and it wouldn't surprise me if they pick up the company for less than its net asset value - and have the UK Government acting as a safety net, even then. In the long term, I'd be amazed if the vast majority of the manufacturing doesn't go to China anyway - so either way the workers are going to be shafted.
i don't think there is anything wrong with the company, well not in the context of global auto industry. Are FIAT, GM, Ford, Mitsubishi etc. making money in the car business? i reckon MG's directors have done their best to stem losses to their current levels - whether the level of their renumerations are entirely fair i shall not comment on.
In 1995 (i forget the exact year) Rover actually made a small profit; no surprise as Honda were sharing/funding a large portion of the R&D , manufacturing facilities etc. But then is the same reason why FIAT, GM, Ford etc can afford to spread their losses over a range of shared platforms.
Unfortunately MG/Rover has not got anywhere near the funding capability of these car giants. Ironic perhaps, but i reckon they are in a better position now to receive government funding than say in the 1970s when poor management in BL and union troubles frittered away any chances of turning the company into a world leader. Well that's my two pence worth.
srebbe64 said:
Quite simply-General Election-Birmingham marginals-Government money.
Both Rover and the Chinese company know this and will use it to their advantage during the negotiations.
. In the long term, I'd be amazed if the vast majority of the manufacturing doesn't go to China anyway - so either way the workers are going to be shafted.
Maybe so-but at least that way there will be a future for the designers and engineers who work for Rover.
In their current status they need some massive investment (along with development) time to produce something the punters actually want to buy. Cars tend to appeal to the head, the heart or both, but Rovers current range doesn't appeal to either; if they can't appeal to the head by competing with Toyota, Honda, Ford etc then they could have at least gone down the route of say Alfa, by producing sexy looking cars. Frankly though I can't see anything happening other than good money being poured after bad until the whole thing collapses in a mess and what is left of the brand is moved out to China, or maybe India. Very depressing. 
By the way, saw one of those new 'City Rovers' for the first time a couple of days ago. I can't remember when I saw a less appealing car; whoever authorised that plan needs to be shot. Selling nothing would be better than selling them, at least nothing wouldn't damage the brand even further...although of course they won't sell any so the whole sorry project will I'm sure end up costing the company money as thousands of examples of that piece of sh1t sit rotting in a field somewhere.
By the way, saw one of those new 'City Rovers' for the first time a couple of days ago. I can't remember when I saw a less appealing car; whoever authorised that plan needs to be shot. Selling nothing would be better than selling them, at least nothing wouldn't damage the brand even further...although of course they won't sell any so the whole sorry project will I'm sure end up costing the company money as thousands of examples of that piece of sh1t sit rotting in a field somewhere.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
i think alot of people feel this is exactly what BMW did...the bribe money being the interest-free loan... was probably peanuts compared to the sale of LandRover to Ford (3bn euros), and they didn't look too bad for it either. the development of Mini must have been worth a few billion, leaving MG with knowhow (k-series?) and some older production lines.
anyway, i digress.
fido said:
i think alot of people feel this is exactly what BMW did...the bribe money being the interest-free loan... was probably peanuts compared to the sale of LandRover to Ford (3bn euros), and they didn't look too bad for it either. the development of Mini must have been worth a few billion, leaving MG with knowhow (k-series?) and some older production lines.
anyway, i digress.
"Fido on Rover"
los angeles said:
By the way, saw one of those new 'City Rovers' for the first time a couple of days ago. I can't remember when I saw a less appealing car; ...
I agree. The car is a joke. It was not well received by British car hacks, but not condemned by them either. Instead, Clarkson condemned a great city car called the Smart car because the base model has a poor ride quality - a case of patriotism too far, I think.
Top Gear gave the City Rover a hammering
and as regards the Smart it came last out of a hundred cars in Ride and handling in the survey by Autoexpress of car owners
The old Austin plant at Longbridge made them the world's second biggest car maker after GM and employed quarter of a million people. I put most of the damage done since then down to socialism preventing the managers from managing and encouraging the workers not to work. It is in it's death throws now, there is no longer critical mass and the industry suffers from overcapacity. The site will make way for much needed housing and the current directors can retire to luxury.
FourWheelDrift said:
I wonder how this effects (if at all) MG's participation in the DTM and BTCC this year.
You're having a laugh, right? You actually believe they've got the money to put into the DTM????
No, I don't think you'll see any formal MG/Rover participation in motorsport. If they do, then it's a big waste of money considering that they ought ot be investing as much in to saving the parent company from going under (not that it'll help)!
Rover make shit product. They've never moved forwards since the takeover. They should have ploughed as much money as possible into designing and BUILDING new cars. Not just facelifting the ones that don't sell that well anyway.
Gassing Station | General Gassing [Archive] | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff