RE: Fancy owning the Austin Rover company name?
Discussion
king arthur said:
Dashnine said:
Reading the article, I don’t think it’s even just Austin - it’s Austin Rover, just as it’s not just Rover.
I did see a list of the names still owned by various companies, can’t recall where Austin was. BMW still have the majority of the legacy BL names.
I'm fairly sure Austin went to SAIC along with Morris, whereas BMW kept Triumph and Riley.I did see a list of the names still owned by various companies, can’t recall where Austin was. BMW still have the majority of the legacy BL names.
Cars:
Austin (car and commercial) - Dormant, name owned by SAIC, Longbridge factory nearly all demolished
Vanden Plas - Dormant, owned by JLR
Morris (cars) - Dormant, named owned by SAIC, Cowley factory demolished in the late 1990s
MG - active, owned by SAIC, design office at Longbridge, production in China
Wolseley - dormant, owned by SAIC. Washwood Heath factory ended up as the LDV plant, closed in 2008
Riley - dormant, owned by BMW
Triumph - dormant, owned by BMW (car and bike operations split in the 1930s)
Rover (and Land Rover) - dormant, owned by JLR. Land Rover obviously very much still around.
Jaguar - obvious
Daimler - dormant, owned by JLR
Authi - closed down in 1975, factory is now the main VW Polo plant
Innocenti - sold by BL in 1976, became part of DeTomaso and closed in 1997.
Leyland Australia - production ceased in 1976, division sold by BL in 1982, became a bus/truck importer, bankrupt in 1998. The old Standard Motor Company factory in Melbourne was sold to Toyota in 1989 and closed in 1994.
Leykor (South Africa) - closed in 1984, sold to Chrysler.
Commercials:
Leyland Trucks - sold to DAF, then became part of Pacaar. Still a distinct and Leyland-based firm, builds all DAF 7.5tonners and RHD DAF HGVs. Bus division split from trucks in 1987, sold to Volvo in 1988, factory closed in 1994.
Scammell - merged into Leyland Trucks, see above, last commercial vehicle in 1988.
Daimler -merged into Leyland Trucks, see above, last commercial vehicle built in 1983
Guy - part of Jaguar pre-BL merger, merged into Leyland Trucks, see above, last commercial vehicle built in 1982
AEC - merged into Leyland Trucks, see above, last commercial vehicle built in 1979
Aveling-Barford - Spun-off from Leyland in 1988, made Barford dumper trucks until 2010.
Bristol Commercials - merged into Leyland Trucks, see above, last commercial vehicle built in 1983
Albion Motors - merged into Leyland Trucks, see above, last commercial vehicle built in 1980. Spun-off and now owned by American Axle, still building driveline components in Glasgow.
Charles Roe - spun-off from Leyland in 1984 and became Optare. Now part of Ashok-Leyland.
Park Royal Vehicles - closed down in 1980.
Morris Commercial: Owned by SAIC and dormant until 2017, now UK-owned and developing the JE retro electric van.
Military:
Alvis - privatised in 1981,now part of BAE, name dormant since 2004.
Daimler - military vehicles ceased production in 1971.
Body:
Pressed Steel Fisher - Name dropped in 1994, the PSF plants became BMW Plants Oxford and Swindon.
Autobody Dies - uncertain.Probably didn't survive much past the closure of the Triumph Canley plant.
Industrial:
Leyland Tractors (ex-Nuffield) - sold to Marshall in 1982, production stopped in 1992. Some ex-Leyland designs still built in Turkey.
Coventry Climax - spun-off from BL in 1982, bankrupt in 1986. Now part of Cargotec, Coventry factory closed in 2009.
Invicta Bridge & Engineering - uncertain.
Miscellaneous:
SU Carburettors - sold by Rover in 1996, rights to the name, products and production in the hands of a new 'SU Carb Co' near Salisbury
Butec Electrical - sold to Prestolite in 1988, factory in Leyland closed in 2009.
Prestcold Fridges - spun-off in 1981, purchased by Copeland Compressors in 1983, name last used in the 1990s.
Fisholow Prefab Buildings - uncertain.
Nuffield Press - sold by BL in 1986 to Robert Maxwell. Then to Reed, then closed in 2011.
Edited by 2xChevrons on Thursday 9th May 08:57
tr3a said:
All you get here is the limited company, which is just an empty shell.
Note how the e-mail address remains carefully unspecified. For all we know, the current owner of 'Austin Rover Ltd.' registered the name using whoeverbuysthisatauctionisaw
ker@hotmail.com as the company's e-mail address.
And that's a limited company created in 2013 (i.e. not the company from back in the day). I think the AR company used back in the day is the Rover one above having been AR Group a couple of times.Note how the e-mail address remains carefully unspecified. For all we know, the current owner of 'Austin Rover Ltd.' registered the name using whoeverbuysthisatauctionisaw
ker@hotmail.com as the company's e-mail address.
2xChevrons said:
king arthur said:
Dashnine said:
Reading the article, I don’t think it’s even just Austin - it’s Austin Rover, just as it’s not just Rover.
I did see a list of the names still owned by various companies, can’t recall where Austin was. BMW still have the majority of the legacy BL names.
I'm fairly sure Austin went to SAIC along with Morris, whereas BMW kept Triumph and Riley.I did see a list of the names still owned by various companies, can’t recall where Austin was. BMW still have the majority of the legacy BL names.
Cars:
Austin (car and commercial) - Dormant, name owned by SAIC, Longbridge factory nearly all demolished
Vanden Plas - Dormant, owned by JLR
Morris (cars) - Dormant, named owned by SAIC, Cowley factory demolished in the late 1990s
MG - active, owned by SAIC, design office at Longbridge, production in China
Wolseley - dormant, owned by SAIC. Washwood Heath factory ended up as the LDV plant, closed in 2008
Riley - dormant, owned by BMW
Triumph - dormant, owned by BMW (car and bike operations split in the 1930s)
Rover (and Land Rover) - dormant, owned by JLR. Land Rover obviously very much still around.
Jaguar - obvious
Daimler - dormant, owned by JLR
Authi - closed down in 1975, factory is now the main VW Polo plant
Innocenti - sold by BL in 1976, became part of DeTomaso and closed in 1997.
Leyland Australia - production ceased in 1976, division sold by BL in 1982, became a bus/truck importer, bankrupt in 1998. The old Standard Motor Company factory in Melbourne was sold to Toyota in 1989 and closed in 1994.
Leykor (South Africa) - closed in 1984, sold to Chrysler.
Commercials:
Leyland Trucks - sold to DAF, then became part of Pacaar. Still a distinct and Leyland-based firm, builds all DAF 7.5tonners and RHD DAF HGVs. Bus division split from trucks in 1987, sold to Volvo in 1988, factory closed in 1994.
Scammell - merged into Leyland Trucks, see above, last commercial vehicle in 1988.
Daimler -merged into Leyland Trucks, see above, last commercial vehicle built in 1983
Guy - part of Jaguar pre-BL merger, merged into Leyland Trucks, see above, last commercial vehicle built in 1982
AEC - merged into Leyland Trucks, see above, last commercial vehicle built in 1979
Aveling-Barford - Spun-off from Leyland in 1988, made Barford dumper trucks until 2010.
Bristol Commercials - merged into Leyland Trucks, see above, last commercial vehicle built in 1983
Albion Motors - merged into Leyland Trucks, see above, last commercial vehicle built in 1980. Spun-off and now owned by American Axle, still building driveline components in Glasgow.
Charles Roe - spun-off from Leyland in 1984 and became Optare. Now part of Ashok-Leyland.
Park Royal Vehicles - closed down in 1980.
Morris Commercial: Owned by SAIC and dormant until 2017, now UK-owned and developing the JE retro electric van.
Military:
Alvis - privatised in 1981,now part of BAE, name dormant since 2004.
Daimler - military vehicles ceased production in 1971.
Body:
Pressed Steel Fisher - Name dropped in 1994, the PSF plants became BMW Plants Oxford and Swindon.
Autobody Dies - uncertain.Probably didn't survive much past the closure of the Triumph Canley plant.
Industrial:
Leyland Tractors (ex-Nuffield) - sold to Marshall in 1982, production stopped in 1992. Some ex-Leyland designs still built in Turkey.
Coventry Climax - spun-off from BL in 1982, bankrupt in 1986. Now part of Cargotec, Coventry factory closed in 2009.
Invicta Bridge & Engineering - uncertain.
Miscellaneous:
SU Carburettors - sold by Rover in 1996, rights to the name, products and production in the hands of a new 'SU Carb Co' near Salisbury
Butec Electrical - sold to Prestolite in 1988, factory in Leyland closed in 2009.
Prestcold Fridges - spun-off in 1981, purchased by Copeland Compressors in 1983, name last used in the 1990s.
Fisholow Prefab Buildings - uncertain.
Nuffield Press - sold by BL in 1986 to Robert Maxwell. Then to Reed, then closed in 2011.
If only the profitable Leyland hadn’t been persuaded to merge with the bankrupt BMC because the government was worried they were too big to fail?
Apparently during family ownership Leyland didn’t lose a single day to strikes in the 100 years to 1966.
Edited by 2xChevrons on Thursday 9th May 08:57
..if I nay be allowed to redeem myself.... maybe get back some kudos with the BL and AR massive..
Here is the automotive family tree at the creation of BL.
[/url] 20240509_140218 by WilliaM340i, on Flickr.
Its big, but click on it and it should expand.
Here is the automotive family tree at the creation of BL.
[/url] 20240509_140218 by WilliaM340i, on Flickr.Its big, but click on it and it should expand.
CDP said:
If only the profitable Leyland hadn’t been persuaded to merge with the bankrupt BMC because the government was worried they were too big to fail?
Apparently during family ownership Leyland didn’t lose a single day to strikes in the 100 years to 1966.
Leyland Motors in the mid/late 1960s was nowhere near as healthy as Donald Stokes managed to portray to an optimistic government desperate for a solution to BMH rapidly heading towards total collapse. It was 'not in as much trouble as BMH', which was a fantastically low bar to clear. The profits that LMC posted in that time were the result of some creative accounting and very low re-investment rates, and even if they were genuine they were not enough to fund long-term costs for LMC, let alone enough to support and reform BMH after the merger. Even British Leyland posted operating profits - the issue wasn't that it didn't make money, but that it didn't make enough money to cover its required capital spending.Apparently during family ownership Leyland didn’t lose a single day to strikes in the 100 years to 1966.
The car side of LMC (Rover and Triumph) were riddled with some of the worst labour relations and output quality in the industry and were dropping some horrific engineering clangers at the time, while BMH's troubles were predominantly a failure of management and strategy.
One of the big ironies of the whole BL saga is that the name that became synonymous with failure - Leyland - arguably deserved it the least. Up to 1960 or thereabouts the Leyland Motors firm building trucks and buses was one of the great global badges of commercial vehicles with a comprehensive range for almost every market and use and with a hard-won reputation for reliable and high-quality, if rather cautious, engineering. It was the huge profits made in the 1940s/1950s that inspired Leyland first to go buying up virtually the entirety of the rest of the British commercial vehicle industry (Scammell, Albion, ACV etc.) and then move into mass-market cars with Standard-Triumph.
That, combined with some unfortunate engineering decisions like the fixed-head engine at just the time as foreign competition was starting to make inroads, weakened Leyland. But all the way through the BL ups and downs the actual Leyland bit remained in pretty rude health making generally decent products. It suffered from top-level decisions at BL which kept slimming down the global sales/support presence that Leyland had built up in the name of saving costs and focussing on the core products (home market Austin and Morris cars). So potentially world-class products like the T45 'Roadtrain' lorry range and the B21 bus were let down because Leyland couldn't guarantee the sales and service support in key markets to the extent that, say, Volvo or DAF or Mercedes-Benz could.
The fact that Leyland remained fundamentally 'alright' is probably shown in the fact that it's still around, still building lorries in Leyland and still - technically - existing under its original name, even if the lorries coming out the factory wear a different badge.
Neil O said:
Re the Austin name, didn't the j40 pedal car company secure the rights, dunno about ownership, of the name allowing the production of continuation versions of the pedal car as Austin j40? And I think the same company own SU cars.
Yes, Burlen - the parent company for the modern incarnation of SU - licensed the rights to the Austin name from SAIC, specifically for pedal cars. SAIC still own and control the rights to the Austin name itself.It's ironic that SU and Austin have ended up together because one of the more petty aspects of the BMC years was that Austins would have Zenith carbs and Morrises would have SUs, even when the cars were built by the same company as badge-engineered variants of each other with the same engine, all because SU was owned by William Morris.
2xChevrons said:
CDP said:
If only the profitable Leyland hadn’t been persuaded to merge with the bankrupt BMC because the government was worried they were too big to fail?
Apparently during family ownership Leyland didn’t lose a single day to strikes in the 100 years to 1966.
Leyland Motors in the mid/late 1960s was nowhere near as healthy as Donald Stokes managed to portray to an optimistic government desperate for a solution to BMH rapidly heading towards total collapse. It was 'not in as much trouble as BMH', which was a fantastically low bar to clear. The profits that LMC posted in that time were the result of some creative accounting and very low re-investment rates, and even if they were genuine they were not enough to fund long-term costs for LMC, let alone enough to support and reform BMH after the merger. Even British Leyland posted operating profits - the issue wasn't that it didn't make money, but that it didn't make enough money to cover its required capital spending.Apparently during family ownership Leyland didn’t lose a single day to strikes in the 100 years to 1966.
The car side of LMC (Rover and Triumph) were riddled with some of the worst labour relations and output quality in the industry and were dropping some horrific engineering clangers at the time, while BMH's troubles were predominantly a failure of management and strategy.
One of the big ironies of the whole BL saga is that the name that became synonymous with failure - Leyland - arguably deserved it the least. Up to 1960 or thereabouts the Leyland Motors firm building trucks and buses was one of the great global badges of commercial vehicles with a comprehensive range for almost every market and use and with a hard-won reputation for reliable and high-quality, if rather cautious, engineering. It was the huge profits made in the 1940s/1950s that inspired Leyland first to go buying up virtually the entirety of the rest of the British commercial vehicle industry (Scammell, Albion, ACV etc.) and then move into mass-market cars with Standard-Triumph.
That, combined with some unfortunate engineering decisions like the fixed-head engine at just the time as foreign competition was starting to make inroads, weakened Leyland. But all the way through the BL ups and downs the actual Leyland bit remained in pretty rude health making generally decent products. It suffered from top-level decisions at BL which kept slimming down the global sales/support presence that Leyland had built up in the name of saving costs and focussing on the core products (home market Austin and Morris cars). So potentially world-class products like the T45 'Roadtrain' lorry range and the B21 bus were let down because Leyland couldn't guarantee the sales and service support in key markets to the extent that, say, Volvo or DAF or Mercedes-Benz could.
The fact that Leyland remained fundamentally 'alright' is probably shown in the fact that it's still around, still building lorries in Leyland and still - technically - existing under its original name, even if the lorries coming out the factory wear a different badge.
Neil O said:
Re the Austin name, didn't the j40 pedal car company secure the rights, dunno about ownership, of the name allowing the production of continuation versions of the pedal car as Austin j40? And I think the same company own SU cars.
Yes, Burlen - the parent company for the modern incarnation of SU - licensed the rights to the Austin name from SAIC, specifically for pedal cars. SAIC still own and control the rights to the Austin name itself.It's ironic that SU and Austin have ended up together because one of the more petty aspects of the BMC years was that Austins would have Zenith carbs and Morrises would have SUs, even when the cars were built by the same company as badge-engineered variants of each other with the same engine, all because SU was owned by William Morris.
I still wonder if there hadn’t been the merger the Leyland half would still be with us. Maybe they bought out the wrong ailing firm and should have had Rootes or VW instead?
CDP said:
A good summary, thanks.
I still wonder if there hadn’t been the merger the Leyland half would still be with us. Maybe they bought out the wrong ailing firm and should have had Rootes or VW instead?
Leyland c.1968 was well on the way to being its own sort of basket case. BMC drove itself to ruin by essentially betting its continued existence on it becoming a million-cars-a-year manufacturer, which it would achieve thanks to the UK's entry to the EEC in 1963, which BMC management had been assured by the government was cert. Then de Gaulle vetoed UK entry and BMC was left having sunk all its profits and borrowing into huge amounts of now-surplus manufacturing capacity and an overly-complex model range (intended to serve both the conservative British market with RWD stodge and the sophisticated Europeans with Issigonis-designed FWD marvels). BMC never cracked the 800k/year production figure, and once it was stuck in that situation all the other long-term issues ended up coming to the surface. For instance, in its dash for production BMC had cut very generous deals with the trade unions because it viewed lost production from strikes as more damaging than increased labour costs through pay/condition improvements, which could be amortised by...increasing production. So the unions were very used to almost being able to dictate terms and gain very generous settlements, coming off the back of memories of the 1920s and 1930s when conditions in the motor industry for the chaps on the line were extremely bad. I still wonder if there hadn’t been the merger the Leyland half would still be with us. Maybe they bought out the wrong ailing firm and should have had Rootes or VW instead?
Leyland was on the same road as BMC but at a slower pace and some distance behind. Triumph (ex-Standard) was minimally profitable and had appalling labour relations and build quality. Rover had some of the worst labour issues in the industry in the 1960s thanks to the taking on of loads of new hands to build the P6. Rover and Triumph were far too close in terms of market position and product range to sit in the same company without severe rationalisation.
I really doubt that Leyland would have been able to weather the economic storm of the early 1970s industrial strife, the Three Day Week, the Energy Crisis and so on any better than BL did in reality. The problems were far too deep-rooted and systemic and went far beyond any individual company. Remember that the three American-owned car makers in the UK also effectively 'collapsed' in the same period. Ford of Britain became Ford of Europe and had much of its independence removed. Vauxhall did have its technical independence removed and became little more than a badge-engineering exercise for Opels with a different nose and Chrysler UK did collapse, was sold and disappeared. It was a complete slaughter.
The sad thing about Rootes was that it was arguably the best-run and best-managed company during the 1950s - it stuck to what it did best, which was offering mechanically conventional but modern family cars in logical and comprehensive range built from common components in way very similar to modern-day VAG. Production centered on a single large and relatively modern factory and an extensive global system of dealers, agents and licensees. The wheels came off Rootes when they tried to step out of their well-trodden path and do something different with the Imp - a car far smaller and more innovative than anything they'd done before. It took far too long to develop (by the time it was launched it was already old-hat in many ways) and was still under-developed when it did launch. Then you had the government-imposed production problems with the Linwood plant. That weakened Rootes and then the ridiculous (and almost certainly Moscow-influenced) British Light Steel Pressings stopped production and delivered the fatal blow from which Rootes never recovered.
In an ideal alternative scenario you'd have had Leyland Motors merge with Rootes in about 1960 to form a cohesive and complementary marriage of commercial and private vehicle builders with very similar corporate cultures and engineering ethos.
It's interesting you mention VW, because so many people forget, or don't realise, that far from being the paragon of German industrial might and business success that it came to be, VW was close to death in the late 1960s thanks to its inability to build anything that wasn't a reskinned Beetle.
With regard to Austin-Rover, the tantalising 'what if?' is that Austin could have been VW's pick for its mass-market low-cost budget starter brand when it went looking in the 1980s. Volkswagen and BL already had a connection with the supply of VW gearboxes for the Maestro and Montego, as well as those cars (Maestro especially) being explicitly designed along VW lines with their torsion-beam rear axles etc. As it happened, Skoda launched the Favorit which made VW sit up and take notice of the latent capability there and then overnight the Velvet Revolution turned Czechoslovakia into a open, easy and low-cost place to do manufacturing right on Volkswagen's doorstep.
But had it panned out differentially all those Skodas you see on modern roads could be Austins, with eighth-generation Passat-based Montegos could be the defauly minicab outside every station.
I had to have a look after reading "fancy owning the Austin Rover company name"
I assume the auction is selling "Austin Rover Ltd". This is a dormant shell company: https://find-and-update.company-information.servic...
The car company was Austin Rover Ltd from incorporation in November 1981, then became BL Cars Ltd in April 1982, then Rover Group Ltd 1st January 1990 and then MG Rover Group Ltd in November 2000. This company was finally dissolved as late as May 2023 https://find-and-update.company-information.servic...
Not sure whether buying "Austin Rover Ltd" has any purpose. It isn't the car company and has literally no assets...
I assume the auction is selling "Austin Rover Ltd". This is a dormant shell company: https://find-and-update.company-information.servic...
The car company was Austin Rover Ltd from incorporation in November 1981, then became BL Cars Ltd in April 1982, then Rover Group Ltd 1st January 1990 and then MG Rover Group Ltd in November 2000. This company was finally dissolved as late as May 2023 https://find-and-update.company-information.servic...
Not sure whether buying "Austin Rover Ltd" has any purpose. It isn't the car company and has literally no assets...
Would be a good name to buy and do a "Dunlop".
Attach it to various Chinese sourced products, aimed at the elderly generation, but trick them into believing it is a great British brand; at heavily inflated prices.
Velcro shoes.
Batteries.
Basic mobile phones.
Golf Clubs.
DVD players.
Blood pressure monitors.
Teppanyaki grills.
Etc.
Attach it to various Chinese sourced products, aimed at the elderly generation, but trick them into believing it is a great British brand; at heavily inflated prices.
Velcro shoes.
Batteries.
Basic mobile phones.
Golf Clubs.
DVD players.
Blood pressure monitors.
Teppanyaki grills.
Etc.
Panamax said:
Speaking of which, I wonder where the Saab brand has gone these days? Like Rolls Royce it was split between aircraft use and automotive use. Similarly Lockheed.
It's interesting how Rolls Royce Plc protect their brand.The use of it was licenced to motor vehicles built in crewe, until VW bought the crewe site, and found they only bought the rights to Bentley.
About the same time, Rolls Royce Plc bought the BMW aerospace site and products near Berlin, at a knock down price, and BMW were sold the rights to use the Rolls Royce name on motor cars built in the UK.
Don't know the exact details. But it was a win win situation for everyone but VW.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff