RE: New TVR Griffith - official
Discussion
unsprung said:
Coincidentally, the folks at new TVR claim that COVID-19 has no impact on their business.
It's kinda true though. The auditor drew attention to the "material uncertainty exists that may cast doubt on the Company's ability to continue as a going concern.". So it is likely kaput as it is and COVID-19 ain't going to change that.JxJ Jr. said:
unsprung said:
Coincidentally, the folks at new TVR claim that COVID-19 has no impact on their business.
It's kinda true though. The auditor drew attention to the "material uncertainty exists that may cast doubt on the Company's ability to continue as a going concern.". So it is likely kaput as it is and COVID-19 ain't going to change that.JxJ Jr. said:
unsprung said:
Coincidentally, the folks at new TVR claim that COVID-19 has no impact on their business.
It's kinda true though. The auditor drew attention to the "material uncertainty exists that may cast doubt on the Company's ability to continue as a going concern.". So it is likely kaput as it is and COVID-19 ain't going to change that.In its most recent documents published at Companies House, TVR dedicates specific paragraphs to COVID-19 -- stating that the pandemic presents "no immediate or foreseen risk to TVR operationally or as a going concern."
In those same documents, TVR cites current debt as well as current plans, during the pandemic, to raise incremental funds -- plans which TVR says have already progressed to a significant degree and which TVR casts in a positive and likely light.
Your argument is joining up the wrong dots, imo, and is an example of how forums have a tendency to manufacture rumour.
unsprung said:
plans which TVR says have already progressed to a significant degree and which TVR casts in a positive and likely light.
Well except for the fact they are talking total crap. Here are the two possible states for TVRs plans:1) STATE A - Investment has not been agreed and signed
2) STATE B - Investment has been agreed or signed
Those states are mutually exclusive, and you are no further along any "plan" until State A, becomes State B.
And of course, although TVR (correctly) state that C19 has had no affect on their business on its day-to-day running (because it doesn't do anything day-to-day), i think it would be incredibly foolish to think that C19 has had no impact on the Investment and Investor arena. If getting someone to risk multiple millions on a fledgeling car company was hard before, then i'm going to suggest it's got even harder now, during and after C19 has decimated a lot of economies.......
unsprung said:
Respectfully... Your words make it appear that you are making a false statement.
In its most recent documents published at Companies House, TVR dedicates specific paragraphs to COVID-19 -- stating that the pandemic presents "no immediate or foreseen risk to TVR operationally or as a going concern."
In those same documents, TVR cites current debt as well as current plans, during the pandemic, to raise incremental funds -- plans which TVR says have already progressed to a significant degree and which TVR casts in a positive and likely light.
Your argument is joining up the wrong dots, imo, and is an example of how forums have a tendency to manufacture rumour.
The comment was tongue in cheek.In its most recent documents published at Companies House, TVR dedicates specific paragraphs to COVID-19 -- stating that the pandemic presents "no immediate or foreseen risk to TVR operationally or as a going concern."
In those same documents, TVR cites current debt as well as current plans, during the pandemic, to raise incremental funds -- plans which TVR says have already progressed to a significant degree and which TVR casts in a positive and likely light.
Your argument is joining up the wrong dots, imo, and is an example of how forums have a tendency to manufacture rumour.
It does indeed say that the virus presents no risk operationally or as a going concern, but it qualifies that by saying it's because they're at a 'pre-production stage'. So product development can tick along but sales and production aren't impacted because...there aren't any to impact.
As for the future funding requirements, they imply negotiations are at an advanced stage and there's 'significant interest' but unless a deal is done, there's still a risk. Just look at Softbank walking away from a term sheet to WeWork.
It's also hard to argue that since that was filed and today that the outlook for either demand or for investment would have improved. At the end of the day TVR are saying they're unaffected by the virus, investment looks positive and the material uncertainty has been mitigated, the auditor is highlighting there is material uncertainty. People have to make their own judgement on where the reality lies.
unsprung said:
JxJ Jr. said:
unsprung said:
Coincidentally, the folks at new TVR claim that COVID-19 has no impact on their business.
It's kinda true though. The auditor drew attention to the "material uncertainty exists that may cast doubt on the Company's ability to continue as a going concern.". So it is likely kaput as it is and COVID-19 ain't going to change that.In its most recent documents published at Companies House, TVR dedicates specific paragraphs to COVID-19 -- stating that the pandemic presents "no immediate or foreseen risk to TVR operationally or as a going concern."
In those same documents, TVR cites current debt as well as current plans, during the pandemic, to raise incremental funds -- plans which TVR says have already progressed to a significant degree and which TVR casts in a positive and likely light.
Your argument is joining up the wrong dots, imo, and is an example of how forums have a tendency to manufacture rumour.
It'd say it's pretty clear TVR are waiting around for some big investment to be able to build the equipment to make lots of cars, and that is not likely to come. Hence the pause for what seems to be a year or two of basically not much happening. I'd love them to succeed, but the market is very different now to where it used to be some decades back.
Niffty951 said:
Hopefully they'll sell the name off for £1 like Rover. We can group buy a few 2009-2012 Caymans, re-body it with something exotic and TVR like made in a shed out of fiberglass, shoehorn in an AMG or Audi twin turbo 4.0 V8 with remap and there you have it.
Amazing handling, reliable, TVR kit car that's mid engined V8. 400hp per tonne for £50k in stores by 2021
We all know that £50k in 2000 equates to £90K in 2020 with inflation. You aren't going to get a new £50K TVR Amazing handling, reliable, TVR kit car that's mid engined V8. 400hp per tonne for £50k in stores by 2021
Sadly I think this was doomed from the moment they signed-off the final styling. Everything since then has been driving down a cul-de-sac.
If it's not as good as a Porsche (and of course it isn't) then it HAS to be better-looking than a Porsche. Which it could have been, as the previous TVRs all were. But this isn't.
If it's not as good as a Porsche (and of course it isn't) then it HAS to be better-looking than a Porsche. Which it could have been, as the previous TVRs all were. But this isn't.
Argleton said:
Lee Jones Jnr said:
Surely Morgan owners (or more likely their children) are the market TVR should be aiming for, certainly the small team/small factory/small output model
I think Morgan owners will still buy Morgans. TVRs are a bit too new fangled.TVR's have always been loud and brash (or certainly in the latter stages of the original marque) whereas Morgans are bonkers but have a very different air about them.
I love them both, I would happily have both a Morgan and a TVR in the fantasy garage as they are different things and scratch different itches despite being on the surface, similar things.
I wasn’t suggesting that the cars are similar nor that they share buyers, hence the ‘or more likely their children’.
Perhaps it was poorly worded.
My point was more that rather than waiting to find the investment required to set up an automated production line and churn out any kind of volume, a better approach may be to follow the Morgan business model.
Perhaps a Ginetta style race series even?
Perhaps it was poorly worded.
My point was more that rather than waiting to find the investment required to set up an automated production line and churn out any kind of volume, a better approach may be to follow the Morgan business model.
Perhaps a Ginetta style race series even?
Lee Jones Jnr said:
I wasn’t suggesting that the cars are similar nor that they share buyers, hence the ‘or more likely their children’.
Perhaps it was poorly worded.
My point was more that rather than waiting to find the investment required to set up an automated production line and churn out any kind of volume, a better approach may be to follow the Morgan business model.
Perhaps a Ginetta style race series even?
the Morgan production line is getting more organised, if not quite automated. pure hand built is a difficult business at 40k, and so they're moving to 60k+. Perhaps it was poorly worded.
My point was more that rather than waiting to find the investment required to set up an automated production line and churn out any kind of volume, a better approach may be to follow the Morgan business model.
Perhaps a Ginetta style race series even?
Lotus is an interesting factory (tours available). no robots but very organised and partially automated. They're very profitable..
Interestingly, many Morgan owners have a Lotus too.
CABC said:
the Morgan production line is getting more organised, if not quite automated. pure hand built is a difficult business at 40k, and so they're moving to 60k+.
Lotus is an interesting factory (tours available). no robots but very organised and partially automated. They're very profitable..
Interestingly, many Morgan owners have a Lotus too.
Lotus "very profitable"? They're loss-making, aren't they??Lotus is an interesting factory (tours available). no robots but very organised and partially automated. They're very profitable..
Interestingly, many Morgan owners have a Lotus too.
ATG said:
Lotus "very profitable"? They're loss-making, aren't they??
Ah, but not if you are true believer and/or get rich Uncle Geely on board with a bit of clever number-juggling. This from 2017,"Lotus has, for the "first time in many years," reported a profit, according to the press release from the automaker. Lotus called this event a "radical financial turnaround" and "a major milestone" in the history of the company.
"Specifically, the recently-minted Geely subsidiary posted a positive EBITDA (that's earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization for you non-finance majors) last year of $2.6 million—a significant achievement considering the company lost the equivalent of over $21 million by the same metric the year before that.
"While Lotus recorded a positive EBITDA, you might be thinking, "Interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization don't sound like insignificant expenses at all." Well, they aren't. In fact, measuring by Profits Before Taxes, Lotus was still in the red by $14.5 million. While that sounds bad, don't write off today's news as financial posturing just yet. For some perspective, Lotus posted a negative PBT of a whopping $53.5 million the year before last, marking almost $30 million less cash lost year-to-year. With that momentum, we wouldn't be surprised if the boutique car firm was straight-up profitable by the end of this fiscal year."
So, in summary, it looks as though Geely have introduced measures which at least make the company's books look better! But I'm very glad I'm not a shareholder...
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff