RE: Charles Morgan: plot thickens
Discussion
DJRC said:
Was the company making a profit or not?
If yes and the order book was healthy then the Board is on dodgy ground. If not then CM is looking dodgy.
EBIT for Morgan Technologies (the ultimate parent) up £1m to £1.7m for the year ended 31st Dec 2012, profits after tax £1.5m from £500k the year before.If yes and the order book was healthy then the Board is on dodgy ground. If not then CM is looking dodgy.
Accounts for '13 aren't available, but order books are reported as being healthy.
DJRC said:
Was the company making a profit or not?
If yes and the order book was healthy then the Board is on dodgy ground. If not then CM is looking dodgy.
IIRC one report said it made a million quid last year. Hardly a huge return for a 100 year old company with a full order book and 34 million in turnover. The majority of the directors were not owners so presumably directors salaries were not the issue? It's far more fiscally effective for owners to take dividends anyway.If yes and the order book was healthy then the Board is on dodgy ground. If not then CM is looking dodgy.
It looks like executive responsibility was stripped from CM some time ago and a tribunal would take that into account?
SkepticSteve said:
Now I am sure his Grandfather would have personally known and treasured all of his employees back in a different era.
Beign the Boss is NOT the same as leadership.
As I say apparently 3rd generation business owners think they OWN it by birthright and many 3rd gen companies fail because they do not have what it takes to run a company.
Isn't there some parable along the lines of...Beign the Boss is NOT the same as leadership.
As I say apparently 3rd generation business owners think they OWN it by birthright and many 3rd gen companies fail because they do not have what it takes to run a company.
The first generation starts the business,
The second generation builds the business,
The third generation makes an utter balls of it!
GarrettMacD said:
SkepticSteve said:
Now I am sure his Grandfather would have personally known and treasured all of his employees back in a different era.
Beign the Boss is NOT the same as leadership.
As I say apparently 3rd generation business owners think they OWN it by birthright and many 3rd gen companies fail because they do not have what it takes to run a company.
Isn't there some parable along the lines of...Beign the Boss is NOT the same as leadership.
As I say apparently 3rd generation business owners think they OWN it by birthright and many 3rd gen companies fail because they do not have what it takes to run a company.
The first generation starts the business,
The second generation builds the business,
The third generation makes an utter balls of it!
However, Charles has built a far bigger and more profitable business and sold more units for more margin and for more profit than his father did, and also his grandfather.
By all accounts, Charles is the better businessman working in a far harder environment than any previous member of the family.
Really, at the end of the day, Charles has turned what was a bit of a hobby/lifestyle for his father into a rather more streamlined and competant business. And has overseen all the new additions and massive hurdles of building cars in the 21st century outside of China.
The 'claims' laid down by the Board for his dismissal really don't seem to add up and either there are more manifest but less tangible errors that if continued would damage the business they just don't seem to be worthy of kicking out a key share holder, family member and employee.
I think this all comes over as a power grab by the second arm of the family, backed by non family employees. All of whom stand to make more money from removing CM and then diluting down his holding via capital issues in due course. Afterall, a voting pref yielding more than bank rates isn't a difficult task and if CM couldn't raise the funds for the issue then his side of the family are out and more importantly the 'Trust' becomes a junior partner thus swerving any criteria of the trust that restricts the company.
stuttgartmetal said:
The Millenium Dome was a failure.
The public were completely underwhelmed, it was bland over priced Mandy crap.
It was an utter and complete failure.
Right down to the point where they trashed the inside, and then sold it on for peanuts.
The Dome was a failure because the politicians left it too late to approve the damn thing and consequently there was no time left to fill it with anything worthwhile.The public were completely underwhelmed, it was bland over priced Mandy crap.
It was an utter and complete failure.
Right down to the point where they trashed the inside, and then sold it on for peanuts.
The Olympics were a success because of lessons learned as a result of the Dome ie - keep the politicos away, give the green light early and let those who know how to do this stuff get on with it.
The Eye is just a fairground ride - v.pretty but no big deal to design, construct or run.
unrepentant said:
It looks like executive responsibility was stripped from CM some time ago and a tribunal would take that into account?
We're talking about directors and major shareholders here, not some apprentice on the shop floor. Any award a Tribunal can make will be trivial to people like this and no, the tribunal can't force the company to give him his job back.CM has clearly failed to impress his majority shareholders so they've hoofed him out. Happens every day. All CM can achieve by making a public fuss is damage to the company - which as he owns 30% of it means damage to himself.
DonkeyApple said:
GarrettMacD said:
SkepticSteve said:
Now I am sure his Grandfather would have personally known and treasured all of his employees back in a different era.
Beign the Boss is NOT the same as leadership.
As I say apparently 3rd generation business owners think they OWN it by birthright and many 3rd gen companies fail because they do not have what it takes to run a company.
Isn't there some parable along the lines of...Beign the Boss is NOT the same as leadership.
As I say apparently 3rd generation business owners think they OWN it by birthright and many 3rd gen companies fail because they do not have what it takes to run a company.
The first generation starts the business,
The second generation builds the business,
The third generation makes an utter balls of it!
However, Charles has built a far bigger and more profitable business and sold more units for more margin and for more profit than his father did, and also his grandfather.
By all accounts, Charles is the better businessman working in a far harder environment than any previous member of the family.
Really, at the end of the day, Charles has turned what was a bit of a hobby/lifestyle for his father into a rather more streamlined and competant business. And has overseen all the new additions and massive hurdles of building cars in the 21st century outside of China.
The 'claims' laid down by the Board for his dismissal really don't seem to add up and either there are more manifest but less tangible errors that if continued would damage the business they just don't seem to be worthy of kicking out a key share holder, family member and employee.
I think this all comes over as a power grab by the second arm of the family, backed by non family employees. All of whom stand to make more money from removing CM and then diluting down his holding via capital issues in due course. Afterall, a voting pref yielding more than bank rates isn't a difficult task and if CM couldn't raise the funds for the issue then his side of the family are out and more importantly the 'Trust' becomes a junior partner thus swerving any criteria of the trust that restricts the company.
Although the 3 wheeler was a good business move as it has turned out, back to Granddad again?
As I was at Le Mans, we could not understand the Morgan racers?
They were not what we expected to see and a lot of disappointments felt generally as Morgan don’t make their own engines; so it should have looked like a Morgan?
We were confused by it to be honest.
We have all seen the Sir J H Jones episode and C M was correct in that it was the car itself, the way it was made and the materials used that gave it its appeal. So let us be honest about that?
Granted the company still has to be run and sold to a certain type of owner.
Perhaps the board want to modernise, up production and reap the profits for a couple of years until every other person has a Morgan?
If that is what has happened then they are wrong and CM is right.
But if CM gets back in charge, I can only advise he spends time with, and makes sure his workforce know he appreciates them for the skills they provide and the soul they put into his cars.
I just did not get that feeling during my visit is all I am saying, and that seems to me to a big part of the ownership satisfaction, in that the guys who actually made it are not just doing a job but are expressing something special and putting of themselves into the car. Now this was being done and I could almost feel it was in-spite of management, not because of management.
Changing that is down to the FULL Board to achieve of course.
I might be getting just a little too emotional about it all, but if I ever do order one it will be after talking too and selecting the men who will build it. In fact I was told some owners do in fact do that.
BalhamLotus said:
This is interesting reading, and goes some way to debunk the "the boys an idiot" myth in my view.
Obviously written before the allegations were leaked, but good nonetheless.
http://www.motorsportmagazine.com/road-cars/opinio...
Interesting maybe but regrettably many statements that do not ring true. Obviously written before the allegations were leaked, but good nonetheless.
http://www.motorsportmagazine.com/road-cars/opinio...
"Done his best for the family business"? This is the guy who after all this blows up regales his audience with his "jet-set lifestyle". A private small company making £1m a year, that has to invest heavily in R&D surely can not sustain a jet-set lifestyle. We know CM could not afford it, he has said so himself. (Yes, I got this from a newspaper article but I'm no 'journalist' with sources).
Also, as for have the support of "the 170 strong workforce" based on one twitter account called 'Mogemployees'? I cannot say with any certainty either way for obvious reasons but I personally know of a number of employees who are happy with the overall outcome. Albeit many people, myself included are 'sad' that CM couldn't/wouldn't stay on as an Ambassador and make it work.
Lastly and most notably Andrew Frankel ought to be embarrassed to use Kiera Morgans' Twitter rant and misquoting it as fact, regarding taking the company car away on the anniversary of his fathers death. Sensationalist twaddle. Funny how two days later she tweets that Morgan won't let her use the car at a photo shoot, them having "taken it away" and all
I expected more from Andrew who is an experienced journalist to be honest.
SkepticSteve said:
But then on the other hand one could say that the appeal of Morgan as the quintessential British Motor Car did all the work and the car sold itself, so back to Granddad.
Although the 3 wheeler was a good business move as it has turned out, back to Granddad again?
As I was at Le Mans, we could not understand the Morgan racers?
They were not what we expected to see and a lot of disappointments felt generally as Morgan don’t make their own engines; so it should have looked like a Morgan?
We were confused by it to be honest.
We have all seen the Sir J H Jones episode and C M was correct in that it was the car itself, the way it was made and the materials used that gave it its appeal. So let us be honest about that?
Granted the company still has to be run and sold to a certain type of owner.
Perhaps the board want to modernise, up production and reap the profits for a couple of years until every other person has a Morgan?
If that is what has happened then they are wrong and CM is right.
But if CM gets back in charge, I can only advise he spends time with, and makes sure his workforce know he appreciates them for the skills they provide and the soul they put into his cars.
I just did not get that feeling during my visit is all I am saying, and that seems to me to a big part of the ownership satisfaction, in that the guys who actually made it are not just doing a job but are expressing something special and putting of themselves into the car. Now this was being done and I could almost feel it was in-spite of management, not because of management.
Changing that is down to the FULL Board to achieve of course.
I might be getting just a little too emotional about it all, but if I ever do order one it will be after talking too and selecting the men who will build it. In fact I was told some owners do in fact do that.
I have bought 4 Morgans from the factory in the last 5 years. I know some of the workers by name and to say hello to. Although the 3 wheeler was a good business move as it has turned out, back to Granddad again?
As I was at Le Mans, we could not understand the Morgan racers?
They were not what we expected to see and a lot of disappointments felt generally as Morgan don’t make their own engines; so it should have looked like a Morgan?
We were confused by it to be honest.
We have all seen the Sir J H Jones episode and C M was correct in that it was the car itself, the way it was made and the materials used that gave it its appeal. So let us be honest about that?
Granted the company still has to be run and sold to a certain type of owner.
Perhaps the board want to modernise, up production and reap the profits for a couple of years until every other person has a Morgan?
If that is what has happened then they are wrong and CM is right.
But if CM gets back in charge, I can only advise he spends time with, and makes sure his workforce know he appreciates them for the skills they provide and the soul they put into his cars.
I just did not get that feeling during my visit is all I am saying, and that seems to me to a big part of the ownership satisfaction, in that the guys who actually made it are not just doing a job but are expressing something special and putting of themselves into the car. Now this was being done and I could almost feel it was in-spite of management, not because of management.
Changing that is down to the FULL Board to achieve of course.
I might be getting just a little too emotional about it all, but if I ever do order one it will be after talking too and selecting the men who will build it. In fact I was told some owners do in fact do that.
To be honest I'm not sure what you are saying (other than you're getting emotional).
Charles was (is?) passionate, charming and effusive. I would not want him running my business however. From my brief conversations with others I don't think too many of them would either.
In my opinion he is selective with his enthusiasm. I and a few others drove 3500 miles in open top Morgans 1000km into the Arctic Circle in 9 days for charity (then turned round and drove all the way back). We visited most European Morgan Dealers en route. A fabulous achievement for the Morgan factory, their cars (one minor breakdown that was overcome) and their people, yet Charles did not once see fit to tweet to his numerous followers or even give it any attention whatsoever. It didn't involve him so he had no interest whatsoever. He did however tweet about some opera somewhere or how good his wife was looking from his holiday view....
Anyhow, I'm rambling now
SkepticSteve said:
DonkeyApple said:
GarrettMacD said:
SkepticSteve said:
Now I am sure his Grandfather would have personally known and treasured all of his employees back in a different era.
Beign the Boss is NOT the same as leadership.
As I say apparently 3rd generation business owners think they OWN it by birthright and many 3rd gen companies fail because they do not have what it takes to run a company.
Isn't there some parable along the lines of...Beign the Boss is NOT the same as leadership.
As I say apparently 3rd generation business owners think they OWN it by birthright and many 3rd gen companies fail because they do not have what it takes to run a company.
The first generation starts the business,
The second generation builds the business,
The third generation makes an utter balls of it!
However, Charles has built a far bigger and more profitable business and sold more units for more margin and for more profit than his father did, and also his grandfather.
By all accounts, Charles is the better businessman working in a far harder environment than any previous member of the family.
Really, at the end of the day, Charles has turned what was a bit of a hobby/lifestyle for his father into a rather more streamlined and competant business. And has overseen all the new additions and massive hurdles of building cars in the 21st century outside of China.
The 'claims' laid down by the Board for his dismissal really don't seem to add up and either there are more manifest but less tangible errors that if continued would damage the business they just don't seem to be worthy of kicking out a key share holder, family member and employee.
I think this all comes over as a power grab by the second arm of the family, backed by non family employees. All of whom stand to make more money from removing CM and then diluting down his holding via capital issues in due course. Afterall, a voting pref yielding more than bank rates isn't a difficult task and if CM couldn't raise the funds for the issue then his side of the family are out and more importantly the 'Trust' becomes a junior partner thus swerving any criteria of the trust that restricts the company.
Although the 3 wheeler was a good business move as it has turned out, back to Granddad again?
As I was at Le Mans, we could not understand the Morgan racers?
They were not what we expected to see and a lot of disappointments felt generally as Morgan don’t make their own engines; so it should have looked like a Morgan?
We were confused by it to be honest.
We have all seen the Sir J H Jones episode and C M was correct in that it was the car itself, the way it was made and the materials used that gave it its appeal. So let us be honest about that?
Granted the company still has to be run and sold to a certain type of owner.
Perhaps the board want to modernise, up production and reap the profits for a couple of years until every other person has a Morgan?
If that is what has happened then they are wrong and CM is right.
But if CM gets back in charge, I can only advise he spends time with, and makes sure his workforce know he appreciates them for the skills they provide and the soul they put into his cars.
I just did not get that feeling during my visit is all I am saying, and that seems to me to a big part of the ownership satisfaction, in that the guys who actually made it are not just doing a job but are expressing something special and putting of themselves into the car. Now this was being done and I could almost feel it was in-spite of management, not because of management.
Changing that is down to the FULL Board to achieve of course.
I might be getting just a little too emotional about it all, but if I ever do order one it will be after talking too and selecting the men who will build it. In fact I was told some owners do in fact do that.
Boshly said:
Charles was (is?) passionate, charming and effusive. I would not want him running my business however. From my brief conversations with others I don't think too many of them would either.
In my opinion he is selective with his enthusiasm.
Boshly said:
Anyhow, I'm rambling now
No I don't think you are, you have more than confirmed my impression.The skilled craftsmen are great people, I spoke to a number of them.
Ask them about management and their faces say it all.
As I tried to say earlier, for me THEY are what Morgan Cars is all about.
4 cars in 5 years, that's an obsession!
stuttgartmetal said:
Mattt said:
stuttgartmetal said:
The millenium dome.
Organised by a board was a disaster.
They should've left Stephen Bayley to direct it.
Morgan seem the type of company with one man to make the decisions.
Looks like this'll go one of two ways.
And not the good way.
The millennium dome I use often as an example of perception versus reality.Organised by a board was a disaster.
They should've left Stephen Bayley to direct it.
Morgan seem the type of company with one man to make the decisions.
Looks like this'll go one of two ways.
And not the good way.
The dome was a success in project terms but widely perceived as a failure.
The London eye was a failure in project terms but perceived as a success.
The public were completely underwhelmed, it was bland over priced Mandy crap.
It was an utter and complete failure.
Right down to the point where they trashed the inside, and then sold it on for peanuts.
The Eye was a success, right from the point they extended its life span because it was making loads of money.
QED
stuttgartmetal said:
Mattt said:
stuttgartmetal said:
The millenium dome.
Organised by a board was a disaster.
They should've left Stephen Bayley to direct it.
Morgan seem the type of company with one man to make the decisions.
Looks like this'll go one of two ways.
And not the good way.
The millennium dome I use often as an example of perception versus reality.Organised by a board was a disaster.
They should've left Stephen Bayley to direct it.
Morgan seem the type of company with one man to make the decisions.
Looks like this'll go one of two ways.
And not the good way.
The dome was a success in project terms but widely perceived as a failure.
The London eye was a failure in project terms but perceived as a success.
The public were completely underwhelmed, it was bland over priced Mandy crap.
It was an utter and complete failure.
Right down to the point where they trashed the inside, and then sold it on for peanuts.
The Eye was a success, right from the point they extended its life span because it was making loads of money.
QED
You raise interesting points but this isn't the place to respond to them.
SkepticSteve said:
The skilled craftsmen are great people, I spoke to a number of them.
Ask them about management and their faces say it all.
As I tried to say earlier, for me THEY are what Morgan Cars is all about.
4 cars in 5 years, that's an obsession!
But which management? Please expandAsk them about management and their faces say it all.
As I tried to say earlier, for me THEY are what Morgan Cars is all about.
4 cars in 5 years, that's an obsession!
Matt UK said:
A quote I like from a poster on the Autocar site.....
Beware. Autocar is famous (infamous?) for its Charles Morgan bias. After all, this is the same Autocar that forgot to bring a camera to their own Morgan ThreeWheeler track test and photo shoot last year...when the front wheel came off at speed. In this case, they are twisting the facts at someone's behest. Sad.As for "inheriting the company", Companies' House shows he didn't. What shares he got after his parent's divorce. And if his father wanted him to have control, Peter would not have created the Family Trust or he would have pointed Charles the Trustee..rather than others.
Autocar has only served to muddy the waters and a 100 year reputation.
johnOjohn said:
There are however some quite harsh comments suggesting the opposite, including one I came across allegedly quoting Peter Morgan as saying "...the boy is an idiot".
I saw that comment as well. And since we seem to be on a search for the truth here, let's toss that one, along with the fellow who offered it, underneath a speeding lorry. Whatever Peter Morgan thought about his son, (and we have a good idea of that by the efforts Peter went to to prevent Charles from obtaining control either during or after Peter's life), Peter would NEVER have uttered those words in private or public, any more than the Queen would say the same thing about her Charles. Peter was a very classy guy, the very epitome of a English gentleman. Charles and his wife have caused enough damage, no need to invent more.
Edited by StraightShooter on Friday 25th October 19:34
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff