RE: Charles Morgan: plot thickens
Discussion
DreadUK said:
bencollins said:
Disagree heartily, absolutely not a "PR" disaster, because as donkeyapple refers to, its par for the course for a family company and I reckon adds to the intrigue and quirkyness.
Theyll be in the news all over the world, you cant buy advertising like that, crusty old english family squabbling, the world loves Downton Abbey.
Tweed, ash frames, family squabbling, haunted churchyards.
It's what people are buying into.
Yea, but 'quirky' customers get bored and move on pretty quickly, as do bankers who watch the early stages of a company's ego fuelled implosion. And whether that destruction is perception or a reality, todays bankers will pull the rug from under their feet faster than a Morgan can accelerate......wait, thats probably the wrong expression. Faster than a Lambo can accelerate....thats better.Theyll be in the news all over the world, you cant buy advertising like that, crusty old english family squabbling, the world loves Downton Abbey.
Tweed, ash frames, family squabbling, haunted churchyards.
It's what people are buying into.
Seriously, there isn't enough people interested in daft kit quality cars who are steeped deeply enough in British tradition to keep a klunky old company profitable. At least not as profitable as it would seem these people want. Buyers will realise that it's as cheap having a bespoke car built by their mate George round the corner as it is to buy a production car from Morgan. You can buy a Harley engine for peanuts, bolt it onto the front of a three wheeled frame and clad it in canvas or plywood for £3K. Go for a genuine JAAP engine, which are still being produced.....just, and you have the genuine article. Call it a Worgan and your nearly there.
Of course it wouldn't work, Morgan occupies a massive niche vacuum, I wonder why? But when your a one trick pony, everythings a threat. God forbid a flue epidemic hits the factory!
They sold 1000+ cars, so your predictions of impending doom and general rambling seem inaccurate.
As someone else said above, head guy being ousted by the board is totally normal and healthy if the board is doing its job and they´re unhappy. No biggy.
GarrettMacD said:
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.
Why not simply add up Charles' profit/losses since his multiple Aero adventures began in 2000? You will find his tenure is deeply in the red. Or better still, look beyond the smoke and mirrors by simply glancing at the change in tangible assets each year. The land and building are gone, the once enormous cash reserves, the liquid investments in the market and the years long waiting list. What they show today is what is left of an entry for 15 million for "intangibles" they created when they restructured in 2011. Otherwise they would be -6,000,000. By all accounts, Charles is the better businessman working in a far harder environment than any previous member of the family.
GarrettMacD said:
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.
Of course they don't "add up" sound "worthy". They aren't supposed to. The article was crafted specifically to create the opinion you voice, by Autocar & Charles. I will give you one example of truth versus manipulation. Last year, appalled by what had resulted from the Oak Racing deal, the board told Charles to STOP spending more money promoting the relationship. This happened near the end of the year, the company's hardest time with cash flow because of the extended hols. Charles left the meeting, went to LeMans, met the team and threw a company party costing an entire week's payroll! The problem with a figurehead is that he can still bind the company..unless the company states otherwise publicly.GarrettMacD said:
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. After all, 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.
Is that the scenario you wish to believe? Because it is isn't the truth. "Second arm"? Every current Morgan shareholder (save Mrs. Morgan) is a child or grandchild of Peter. Charles was his youngest child..but if you look at all the Morgan Financials, only Charles has benefited mightily in the last decade and they have also bailed him out with depressing regularity. But remember, they all inherited from their mother in the same period, who was wealthier than Peter. You make some worthwhile comments about soul and skills but they are misplaced. The fact is that the old staff left after 2000, too disheartened to stay. And the very concept of what a Morgan was was lost, replaced by pithy noble-sounding nonsense. However, you are likely right on the money bit. With Charles gone, the others might make some.
Boshly said:
Please take into consideration Mr Shooter has a long running vendetta against CM, MMC and anyone who disagrees with him 
and has had for a very long time.
Shame really as he's obviously quite eloquent and knowledgable and indeed passionate, shame it's tempered by 'other stuff'.
Vendetta is a strong word. and has had for a very long time. Shame really as he's obviously quite eloquent and knowledgable and indeed passionate, shame it's tempered by 'other stuff'.
'£15M' of intangibles and the state of the waiting list are reasons for concern. I think the £15M figure can be supported, it's a reasonable value on such a long heritage. Test the value of it by considering what it would cost you (hypothetically, because it's impossible) to create that kind of long term goodwill from scratch.
The question mark, for me, would be whether Charles Morgan's tenure has undermined the £15M - i.e. generated a substantial amount of 'badwill'. I can't imagine the decision to remove him was taken lightly or fuelled by spite.
DreadUK said:
Go for a genuine JAAP engine, which are still being produced.....just, and you have the genuine article
Off topic, my surname is Jaap, I've spent 50+ years telling people that it is not JAP (like the motorbike engines) or Japp (like the police inspector in Poirot) and now someone mis spells Jap, ironic!That's all, as you were, back to Morgan business!
bosscerbera said:
Vendetta is a strong word.
'£15M' of intangibles and the state of the waiting list are reasons for concern. I think the £15M figure can be supported, it's a reasonable value on such a long heritage. Test the value of it by considering what it would cost you (hypothetically, because it's impossible) to create that kind of long term goodwill from scratch.
The question mark, for me, would be whether Charles Morgan's tenure has undermined the £15M - i.e. generated a substantial amount of 'badwill'. I can't imagine the decision to remove him was taken lightly or fuelled by spite.
I can appreciate that the £15m of 'intangibles' are on the balance sheet. But what of the profit and loss? Is there a suggestion that creative accounting is going on there?'£15M' of intangibles and the state of the waiting list are reasons for concern. I think the £15M figure can be supported, it's a reasonable value on such a long heritage. Test the value of it by considering what it would cost you (hypothetically, because it's impossible) to create that kind of long term goodwill from scratch.
The question mark, for me, would be whether Charles Morgan's tenure has undermined the £15M - i.e. generated a substantial amount of 'badwill'. I can't imagine the decision to remove him was taken lightly or fuelled by spite.
bosscerbera said:
Boshly said:
Please take into consideration Mr Shooter has a long running vendetta against CM, MMC and anyone who disagrees with him and has had for a very long time.
Shame really as he's obviously quite eloquent and knowledgable and indeed passionate, shame it's tempered by 'other stuff'.
Vendetta is a strong word. and has had for a very long time. Shame really as he's obviously quite eloquent and knowledgable and indeed passionate, shame it's tempered by 'other stuff'.
'£15M' of intangibles and the state of the waiting list are reasons for concern. I think the £15M figure can be supported, it's a reasonable value on such a long heritage. Test the value of it by considering what it would cost you (hypothetically, because it's impossible) to create that kind of long term goodwill from scratch.
The question mark, for me, would be whether Charles Morgan's tenure has undermined the £15M - i.e. generated a substantial amount of 'badwill'. I can't imagine the decision to remove him was taken lightly or fuelled by spite.
But methinks there is an agenda being played out here. The fact is that it is unlikely this coup could have happened without Charles' two colleagues who have now assumed his title and are now running the company. Here is a picture of them. They are the two fellows on the right. Boshly is the fella on the left.
PS If you would like a decent analysis, then ignore the drivel put out by Autocar and read the Telegraph http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/car-manufactur...
Edited by StraightShooter on Monday 28th October 13:52
unrepentant said:
Today's dealer meeting should be pretty interesting....
Some familiar sounding antics in the Telegraph's account of dealer relations. Telegraph said:
...relations with its 65 dealers are verging on open warfare, with unsold cars being forced into the network and several dealers reporting that the cars were unreliable and demanded large amounts of remedial work
bosscerbera said:
unrepentant said:
Today's dealer meeting should be pretty interesting....
Some familiar sounding antics in the Telegraph's account of dealer relations. Telegraph said:
...relations with its 65 dealers are verging on open warfare, with unsold cars being forced into the network and several dealers reporting that the cars were unreliable and demanded large amounts of remedial work
StraightShooter said:
bosscerbera said:
Boshly said:
Please take into consideration Mr Shooter has a long running vendetta against CM, MMC and anyone who disagrees with him and has had for a very long time.
Shame really as he's obviously quite eloquent and knowledgable and indeed passionate, shame it's tempered by 'other stuff'.
Vendetta is a strong word. and has had for a very long time. Shame really as he's obviously quite eloquent and knowledgable and indeed passionate, shame it's tempered by 'other stuff'.
'£15M' of intangibles and the state of the waiting list are reasons for concern. I think the £15M figure can be supported, it's a reasonable value on such a long heritage. Test the value of it by considering what it would cost you (hypothetically, because it's impossible) to create that kind of long term goodwill from scratch.
The question mark, for me, would be whether Charles Morgan's tenure has undermined the £15M - i.e. generated a substantial amount of 'badwill'. I can't imagine the decision to remove him was taken lightly or fuelled by spite.
But methinks there is an agenda being played out here. The fact is that it is unlikely this coup could have happened without Charles' two colleagues who have now assumed his title and are now running the company. Here is a picture of them. They are the two fellows on the right. Boshly is the fella on the left.
PS If you would like a decent analysis, then ignore the drivel put out by Autocar and read the Telegraph http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/car-manufactur...
Edited by StraightShooter on Monday 28th October 13:52
...... my better side ...... you are however such a sad person having kept that picture, I hate to say it but it must be 3 or 4 years old. Would you like me to send you a more up-to-date one?Fact is Mr Sharpshooter I have opinions that may or may not align with yours or anyone else's the same as most people. The difference between us is that I don't hide behind subterfuge and false pseudonyms, to post my opinions. T'is just simply me and mine! Same forum name and many people know who I am.
As for you, it was only a couple of years ago where you were agreeing with yourself on here during some debate utilising a couple of your personas. Just before you got booted off for multiple log-ins I believe
I see that you selectively chopped off my quote - you are good at that - which stated that "Charles is a charming and effusive fellow, but ... I wouldn't like him running my business"). I have posted little other than that opinion I have though tried to defuse the conjecture and the BS that has been occasionally spouted.
BTW also for clarity, IMHO your 'vendetta' is not simply against Charles but against the MMC of the last few years, and anyone who doesn't agree with you
As I've said before, I'll say again, its such a shame you can't play nicely as you are obviously not lacking brain cells, have a reasonable command of the English language and know a lot about Morgans. You play too many games though.
Oh and Bosscerbera, I did look up vendetta after your comment and it certainly can have some pretty strong connotations but this definition from the free dictionary seems to sum it up quite well "any prolonged and bitter feud, rivalry, contention, or the like". I also concur with your last paragraph
I do however disagree with Mr SS however as his assertion that this "coup" couldn't have happened without Steve Morris and Tim Whitworth is incorrect. They hold no shares. As such the other shareholders could always have voted against CM and ousted him; though I'm sure they would have ensured they had someone they trusted completely holding the reins, the aforementioned gentlemen in this case.
bosscerbera said:
Vendetta is a strong word.
It certainly is. But these days it has become common for people to publicly throw around extreme rhetoric, like confetti at a wedding, especially if it suits their agenda. Politicians do it as a way of life. In this case, there is apparently a hope to prejudice my credibility. (shrug) So let's rely on Morgan themselves and stick to their Companies House reports rather than finger pointing. bosscerbera said:
'£15M' of intangibles and the state of the waiting list are reasons for concern. I think the £15M figure can be supported, it's a reasonable value on such a long heritage. Test the value of it by considering what it would cost you (hypothetically, because it's impossible) to create that kind of long term goodwill from scratch.
The point is that figure was pulled out of thin air in 2012 when the companies were amalgamated under Morgan Tecnhologies. Without that inclusion of the "intangible" figure (actually £13,500,000), what would the companies be showing as net worth now? From the 2012 statement - net worth 15,257,969 less "intangibles" of 13,500,000 = £1,757,969
The last year Peter had control was 1999, pre-Aero. The figure he felt comfortable with for intangibles was £357,193.
From the 1999 statement - net worth was 7,494,193 less that 357,193 = for 7,137,000. But they also still owned the plant and land..under Peter's name. They sold it for approximately 5.8 million in 2006. for a total in 1999 of £12,937,000 So, if their Companies House filing and my arithmetic is correct, there would seem to be a hard asset difference of more than -11,000,000 for the management regimes after Peter.
bosscerbera said:
The question mark, for me, would be whether Charles Morgan's tenure has undermined the £15M - i.e. generated a substantial amount of 'badwill'. I can't imagine the decision to remove him was taken lightly or fueled by spite.
I agree. It is always a question of money when we get down to it. It is in every private company. But please note, the only ones with tenure at Morgan for the last 15 years have been the two fellows who run the show today. Charles has been in and out before. What the boshly creature sees as my "vendetta" is simply a very panicky grandmotherly concern. Like you, I rely on figures, not wishful thinking.
StraightShooter said:
Stuff
I'm really sorry Lorne, I'll bow out quietly and bother you no more. I didn't realize that the scourge of old age has finally caught up with you 
(You have answered the same post twice now, and whilst I know you love the attention I assumed that was the case but seeing how much you have put into both replies I can see you're simply losing your mind).All the best
Boshly
PS that must also explain you resorting to personal insults - no worries apology not required but accepted nonetheless.
StraightShooter said:
bosscerbera said:
Vendetta is a strong word.
It certainly is. But these days it has become common for people to publicly throw around extreme rhetoric, like confetti at a wedding, especially if it suits their agenda. Politicians do it as a way of life. In this case, there is apparently a hope to prejudice my credibility. (shrug) So let's rely on Morgan themselves and stick to their Companies House reports rather than finger pointing. bosscerbera said:
'£15M' of intangibles and the state of the waiting list are reasons for concern. I think the £15M figure can be supported, it's a reasonable value on such a long heritage. Test the value of it by considering what it would cost you (hypothetically, because it's impossible) to create that kind of long term goodwill from scratch.
The point is that figure was pulled out of thin air in 2012 when the companies were amalgamated under Morgan Tecnhologies. Without that inclusion of the "intangible" figure (actually £13,500,000), what would the companies be showing as net worth now? From the 2012 statement - net worth 15,257,969 less "intangibles" of 13,500,000 = £1,757,969
The last year Peter had control was 1999, pre-Aero. The figure he felt comfortable with for intangibles was £357,193.
From the 1999 statement - net worth was 7,494,193 less that 357,193 = for 7,137,000. But they also still owned the plant and land..under Peter's name. They sold it for approximately 5.8 million in 2006. for a total in 1999 of £12,937,000 So, if their Companies House filing and my arithmetic is correct, there would seem to be a hard asset difference of more than -11,000,000 for the management regimes after Peter.
bosscerbera said:
The question mark, for me, would be whether Charles Morgan's tenure has undermined the £15M - i.e. generated a substantial amount of 'badwill'. I can't imagine the decision to remove him was taken lightly or fueled by spite.
I agree. It is always a question of money when we get down to it. It is in every private company. But please note, the only ones with tenure at Morgan for the last 15 years have been the two fellows who run the show today. Charles has been in and out before. What the boshly creature sees as my "vendetta" is simply a very panicky grandmotherly concern. Like you, I rely on figures, not wishful thinking.
Boshly said:
This is the guy.....
In my opinion...
Anyhow, I'm rambling now
No. I do not think you are rambling. It would be more accurate to say that you are crapping on Charles Morgan, his wife and a Mr. Frankel (for his expression of support). Curious. Was your Arctic tale the justification for your present anti-Charles bile or a script you have been given? Is his young pretty wife and his love of opera why you keep publicly writing that he is a "bad businessman". Or do have any verifiable facts to offer? In my opinion...
Anyhow, I'm rambling now
Edited by StraightShooter on Tuesday 29th October 00:27
I would have thought that a company like MMC would have been one of the major sufferers of the recession. No one needs a Morgan. It is all but the definition of a luxury item.
The years have not always been kind to MMC. When a friend of mine bought a new +4 in the 60s there was something like a 3-month wait.
Using the balance sheet and historical comparisons to judge the performance of Chas is not, perhaps, the most accurate method.
Many other companies producing luxury items, or which are into supporting hedonistic life styles, have gone under.
The years have not always been kind to MMC. When a friend of mine bought a new +4 in the 60s there was something like a 3-month wait.
Using the balance sheet and historical comparisons to judge the performance of Chas is not, perhaps, the most accurate method.
Many other companies producing luxury items, or which are into supporting hedonistic life styles, have gone under.
Derek Smith said:
I would have thought that a company like MMC would have been one of the major sufferers of the recession. No one needs a Morgan. It is all but the definition of a luxury item.
The years have not always been kind to MMC. When a friend of mine bought a new +4 in the 60s there was something like a 3-month wait.
Using the balance sheet and historical comparisons to judge the performance of Chas is not, perhaps, the most accurate method.
Many other companies producing luxury items, or which are into supporting hedonistic life styles, have gone under.
The advantage Morgan has had is that the recession in the UK hasn't impacted on a key demographic. We've had an equity rally, no London property decline, a fall in the price of debt and several sectors actually out performing. The fall in City incomes hit the under 35s the most where it happened and they aren't typically Morgan customers. The years have not always been kind to MMC. When a friend of mine bought a new +4 in the 60s there was something like a 3-month wait.
Using the balance sheet and historical comparisons to judge the performance of Chas is not, perhaps, the most accurate method.
Many other companies producing luxury items, or which are into supporting hedonistic life styles, have gone under.
This recession due to the need to keep debtors afloat has been very different from others. Add in the demographic spike of the over 55s and the largest every pension reserves and highest pension incomes of all times and you can begin to see why a company like MMC have kept volumes.
It's no surprise that vols from Germany have behaved similarly. Where it is impressive though is that most luxury brands have not been able to grow without BRIC demand being the driver.
With regard to the financials. If they have been selling off real assets and inflating intangibles to compensate for the spending/investing of the raised cash then this wouldn't exactly be any different from the 21st century way of running a business. Most have sold off their foundations and increased leverage. It's the reason why the big highstreet chains that have collapsed couldn't survive their downturn. But it isn't an anomalous or sinister behaviour per se.
There must have been a reasonable cost to switch from hand building panels/parts to outsourcing or tooling up?
I can't see the 3 wheeler being hugely profitable as it is a low ticket item but it generates good cash flow and helps optimise labour.
No idea why Morgan go racing. None.
No idea why, beyond the grant, they are faffing with EVs. Tax breaks?
They needed the Eva to crack the under 50s properly.
Edited by DonkeyApple on Tuesday 29th October 08:13
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff