Charles Morgan
Discussion
graemel said:
Whatever the outcome I wish Morgan well. I would like to think that they will continue to flourish and still retain there individual character, within an industry of bland look alikes and pokemon faces.
I agree.Amongst motor car manufacturers, they are clearly unique.
In modern parlance, their history, continuity of design, grandson of the founder, no moving production line, loyal enthusiastic customers, is all part of the brand now. Sometimes that word is mocked, but these days, brand image can be a valuable part of many businesses. Remember what happened to the second generation company Ratners.
In my opinion, taking this aspect into account, it shows a potential PR disaster might have occurred. Some Morgan car owners have expressed the view, that the Morgan company will not be the same, without a direct descendent being involved, even as a figurehead.
What has become clear now, is that the board of directors did not seem to anticipate the outcry, or how the internet can send a news item into a spin. One internet comment said, 'if the board cannot cope properly with the PR surrounding a director resignation, how can they run a company in the age of instant communication?'
Edited by Jon39 on Sunday 20th October 13:17
Jon39 said:
What has become clear now, is that the board of directors did not seem to anticipate the outcry, or how the internet can send a news item into a spin. One internet comment said, 'if the board cannot cope properly with the PR surrounding a director resignation, how can they run a company in the age of instant communication?'
Alternatively, the board knew exactly how bad the initial fall out would be, but decided that leaving CM in place was a far bigger problem.Sometimes, you've got to act - temporary short-term pain for longer-term benefits.
EskimoArapaho said:
Alternatively, the board knew exactly how bad the initial fall out would be, but decided that leaving CM in place was a far bigger problem.
Sometimes, you've got to act - temporary short-term pain for longer-term benefits.
Well possibly. Presumably 'time will tell'.Sometimes, you've got to act - temporary short-term pain for longer-term benefits.
I think the board issued a second (clarification) statement, following their original 'management speak' press release. That might possibly indicate, the 'social media' reaction did surprise them.
On the car owners' forums, they (the customers) are mostly very upset. It is the loss of direct connection with the company founder, that is the important aspect to them.
Purely in 'the mind' I know, but amongst the reasons for buying a Morgan today, would not be the need for transport.
I don't have any connection, but just hope that MMC contiues to thrive.
EskimoArapaho said:
Jon39 said:
What has become clear now, is that the board of directors did not seem to anticipate the outcry, or how the internet can send a news item into a spin. One internet comment said, 'if the board cannot cope properly with the PR surrounding a director resignation, how can they run a company in the age of instant communication?'
Alternatively, the board knew exactly how bad the initial fall out would be, but decided that leaving CM in place was a far bigger problem.Sometimes, you've got to act - temporary short-term pain for longer-term benefits.
The point overlooked is how hard the family has always worked to keep him from control. Charles Morgan inherited his minority shareholding from his divorced mother (an extraordinarily wealthy lady from her own family). Peter left his own shares to a Trust and gave its voting power to others, not Charles. Doesn't that say something to anyone? No one wishes to make public a list of Charles' problems but surely people should be able to smell the smoke.
On the other hand, the non-family bean counters who now run Morgan for the family have never put buyers and the cars as their first priority. And they have not come from the media background as Charles and his wife have. They will not be able to play the Press as well.
StraightShooter said:
On the other hand, the non-family bean counters who now run Morgan for the family have never put buyers and the cars as their first priority.
The guy that runs the place for the shareholders started at Morgan as an apprentice, he's worked his way up the hard way.I'd certainly have to disagree with your comment on him not having the cars and customers as priority from my own personal experience.
StraightShooter said:
On the other hand, the non-family bean counters who now run Morgan for the family, have never put buyers and the cars as their first priority. And they have not come from the media background as Charles and his wife have. They will not be able to play the Press as well.
Oh dear, that does not paint a very good picture, although I do note that John Richards disagrees (referring presumably to the present CEO).I can just imagine the job advertisement.
.......................................................
TOP MANAGEMENT - SPORTS CAR MANUFACTURER.
You will be required to give low priority to;
CUSTOMERS
PRODUCTS
PUBLICITY, MARKETING AND PUBLIC RELATIONS
Somehow though, you must produce maximum shareholder return.
.......................................................
I think there are two classes of shares.
Trustees of PHG Morgan Family Trust = 48% Ordinary A shares.
All other holdings are B shares.
Might there perhaps be different voting rights, between the two classes of shares?
Edited by Jon39 on Sunday 20th October 22:01
In relation to the issue of family this is interesting from Charles Morgan in 2009 - http://www.morgan-motor.co.uk/morgan_events/morgan...
Wonder how long that will stay on the site?
Wonder how long that will stay on the site?
StraightShooter said:
You are refreshing to read Eskimo! The truth is that Charles Morgan is too high maintenance for any business concern that wants to survive. And either the company finally publicly declared that he could no longer contractually bind them, or they had to keep swallowing the tab for his scary decisions.
The point overlooked is how hard the family has always worked to keep him from control. Charles Morgan inherited his minority shareholding from his divorced mother (an extraordinarily wealthy lady from her own family). Peter left his own shares to a Trust and gave its voting power to others, not Charles. Doesn't that say something to anyone? No one wishes to make public a list of Charles' problems but surely people should be able to smell the smoke.
On the other hand, the non-family bean counters who now run Morgan for the family have never put buyers and the cars as their first priority. And they have not come from the media background as Charles and his wife have. They will not be able to play the Press as well.
Well said.The point overlooked is how hard the family has always worked to keep him from control. Charles Morgan inherited his minority shareholding from his divorced mother (an extraordinarily wealthy lady from her own family). Peter left his own shares to a Trust and gave its voting power to others, not Charles. Doesn't that say something to anyone? No one wishes to make public a list of Charles' problems but surely people should be able to smell the smoke.
On the other hand, the non-family bean counters who now run Morgan for the family have never put buyers and the cars as their first priority. And they have not come from the media background as Charles and his wife have. They will not be able to play the Press as well.
However, a more efficient company may ultimately be for the benefit of those loyal customers.
[quote=sammi][quote=StraightShooter]
"The point overlooked is how hard the family has always worked to keep him from control. Charles Morgan inherited his minority shareholding from his divorced mother (an extraordinarily wealthy lady from her own family). Peter left his own shares to a Trust and gave its voting power to others, not Charles. Doesn't that say something to anyone? No one wishes to make public a list of Charles' problems but surely people should be able to smell the smoke. "
If you wanted a family business to continue but with someone perhaps holding some "restraining reins" you would leave your shares to a Trust, but this Trust has not restrained but decapitated its figurehead.
I really hope Morgan Motors does not go the same way as TVR, Bristol,etc. it will be a sad loss to British Sports Car industry (which is fast evaporating)
I don't want to own a mass produced sports car I want something with character and individuality which at present "Morgan" is !
"The point overlooked is how hard the family has always worked to keep him from control. Charles Morgan inherited his minority shareholding from his divorced mother (an extraordinarily wealthy lady from her own family). Peter left his own shares to a Trust and gave its voting power to others, not Charles. Doesn't that say something to anyone? No one wishes to make public a list of Charles' problems but surely people should be able to smell the smoke. "
If you wanted a family business to continue but with someone perhaps holding some "restraining reins" you would leave your shares to a Trust, but this Trust has not restrained but decapitated its figurehead.
I really hope Morgan Motors does not go the same way as TVR, Bristol,etc. it will be a sad loss to British Sports Car industry (which is fast evaporating)
I don't want to own a mass produced sports car I want something with character and individuality which at present "Morgan" is !
I remember an article in one of the international classic car magazines around the time of some guru looking into the way Morgan was run. Some weeks ago now. The comment was that Morgan, out of 'all' the sports car manufacturers (the article highlighted the rich heritage of British sports car manufacturers and how healthy many were - TVR was given a special mention) was based on customer appreciation of its unique aspects. These included the styling (or lack of it) but the main thrust was have a Morgan at the helm of the Morgan company.
The article concluded that the decision to reject most of the advice showed that longevity was more important than profits to the company.
I wanted a Morgan when I retired but circumstances (loss of some income) meant that it was not to be. So I opted for a TVR, and less than half the price. I am of the demographic that everyone suggests will desire Morgans but I can't help thinking that, like me, those who like the car for what it is cannot normally afford one until retirement. Those with oodles of money have to go down-market and turn up on a Porsche otherwise tongues will wag.
This move to virtually remove the Morgan name from the manager's office is either a brave response to a dire problem or, perhaps, a poorly thought-out response by those who don't understand what Morgan means to those who buy them.
A friend of mine in the late 60s bought a new +4. He was asked to come to the factory one day, was introduced to his chassis and an A4 card was removed from it and the chap asked my friend a series of questions regarding the car: what colour, vents on the bonnet top, sir? Wheels - wires - and how many spokes - er, I've not given . . . what are best? - and such.
A bloke I used to work with bought a Morgan around 2000, again new, and went to the factory and a virtually identical procedure was in place still. He was thrilled.
It would be a shame if the company went for income rather than continuation. Other companies have failed when this has been tried.
It's hard out there. I don't think any of us, or them come to that, know if this is the right decision, but the answer will come, one way or the other, in time.
It would be a dreadful shame to lose Morgan or, probably worse still, to have the badge on the nose of some heap built in Indonesia by Chrysler.
The article concluded that the decision to reject most of the advice showed that longevity was more important than profits to the company.
I wanted a Morgan when I retired but circumstances (loss of some income) meant that it was not to be. So I opted for a TVR, and less than half the price. I am of the demographic that everyone suggests will desire Morgans but I can't help thinking that, like me, those who like the car for what it is cannot normally afford one until retirement. Those with oodles of money have to go down-market and turn up on a Porsche otherwise tongues will wag.
This move to virtually remove the Morgan name from the manager's office is either a brave response to a dire problem or, perhaps, a poorly thought-out response by those who don't understand what Morgan means to those who buy them.
A friend of mine in the late 60s bought a new +4. He was asked to come to the factory one day, was introduced to his chassis and an A4 card was removed from it and the chap asked my friend a series of questions regarding the car: what colour, vents on the bonnet top, sir? Wheels - wires - and how many spokes - er, I've not given . . . what are best? - and such.
A bloke I used to work with bought a Morgan around 2000, again new, and went to the factory and a virtually identical procedure was in place still. He was thrilled.
It would be a shame if the company went for income rather than continuation. Other companies have failed when this has been tried.
It's hard out there. I don't think any of us, or them come to that, know if this is the right decision, but the answer will come, one way or the other, in time.
It would be a dreadful shame to lose Morgan or, probably worse still, to have the badge on the nose of some heap built in Indonesia by Chrysler.
StraightShooter said:
The truth is that Charles Morgan is too high maintenance for any business concern that wants to survive. And either the company finally publicly declared that he could no longer contractually bind them, or they had to keep swallowing the tab for his scary decisions.
I know none of the background to the 'high maintenance', or 'scary decisions' aspects.However it puzzles me when considerering (to an outsider) the transformation of the company, during Charles Morgan's time at the helm.
1. The 'upper' range of cars have been developed, and are presumably financially succesful. They have certainly improved the brand image enormously.
2. Production numbers are up, I think someone indicated this year might be a record.
3. Pre-tax profits are better than Aston Martin.
So on the face of it, things look OK.
What have I misunderstood?
StraightShooter said:
The truth is that Charles Morgan is too high maintenance for any business concern that wants to survive. And either the company finally publicly declared that he could no longer contractually bind them, or they had to keep swallowing the tab for his scary decisions.
No one wishes to make public a list of Charles' problems but surely people should be able to smell the smoke.
"StraightShooter" You make rather personal jibes at Charles Morgan full of innuendo, unless you can substantiate them you should keep quiet.No one wishes to make public a list of Charles' problems but surely people should be able to smell the smoke.
If you are a "StraightShooter" speak straight !!!!
Jon39 said:
However it puzzles me when considerering (to an outsider) the transformation of the company, during Charles Morgan's time at the helm.
1. The 'upper' range of cars have been developed, and are presumably financially successful.
Why would assume that? If you ignore the trick accounting, you will see that their Companies House statements indicate that, since the introduction of the Aero, they have lost their once famous cash reserves, their stock market investments and their Malvern land and buildings (for which they now pay a high rent). Millions gone. 1. The 'upper' range of cars have been developed, and are presumably financially successful.
The original Aero line (all 4 versions) are defunct, the sales of the Aero SS are defunct and the sales of the Aero Coupe is a trickle. The "new Plus 8" (the Aero dressed to look like a classic on steroids) is winning awards as the one of the worst selling cars in the UK http://cars.uk.msn.com/features/the-worst-selling-...
Yet. It has been quite a "transformation"!
Jon39 said:
2. Production numbers are up, I think someone indicated this year might be a record.
Do you like a diet of smoke and mirrors? If not, you would have noticed they now combine 3wheeler sales with 4 wheelers to give the appearance of increasing sales. In fact, if you examine the figures more closely, you will notice that the lucrative 4wheelers have dropped 19% in the 2 years to December 2012 and that registrations for Germany, their bellweather market, are down 17% this year thru September. (Normally other markets are worse.)Jon39 said:
3. Pre-tax profits are better than Aston Martin.
Let's be kind and NOT use poor Aston Martin as a yardstick for success. Look at the Morgan holding company (Morgan Technologies) statements at Companies House. To create the illusion of profit, they capitalized expenses as 'developments cost". Who in the right mind pays more taxes than they have to!! Unless they want to give a perception of profit. I smell someone being bonused on profits declares. The true picture is in the plummeting net cash flow they show. The more profits they make, the less money they have! Jon39 said:
3 So on the face of it, things look OK. What have I misunderstood?
Basic business. Companies are a success when they take in more money than they put out. In the last decade, this one hasn't come close. Edited by StraightShooter on Wednesday 23 October 15:38
Thank you James, for your most detailed financial explanation.
The impression given to outside observers, does now appear to be a 'rose tinted' view. A shame, but as you indicate, change would be needed to any business under these circumstances.
If you have seen the Aston Martin parent company accounts, we would like to see your similar analysis on the Aston Martin forum.
Aston Martin has something, which perhaps Morgan does not possess, and it has enabled the company to reach it's centenary this year. Mr. Victor Gauntlett explained it, “It’s because Astons are thoroughbreds, that people have tried so hard to keep the marque alive.” In other words, every time (and there have been many) a financial disaster occurred, an enthusiastic saviour with very deep pockets appeared.
Jon39 said:
Aston Martin has something, which perhaps Morgan does not possess, and it has enabled the company to reach it's centenary this year.
Ahem - Morgan Centenary in 2009Edited by Silver Smudger on Wednesday 23 October 21:28
Jon39 said:
Thank you James, for your most detailed financial explanation.
You're welcome. You are one of the rare ones. Someone who does not get angry when sad facts are related. Jon39 said:
If you have seen the Aston Martin parent company accounts, we would like to see your similar analysis on the Aston Martin forum.
Sorry. I have never examined the Aston Martin financial filings. I am just an admirer of their products. I once saw engine blocks being cast for them. Incredible. Way ahead of the curve.I will wander over to Companies House when I have some spare time.
Silver Smudger said:
Jon39 said:
Aston Martin has something, which perhaps Morgan does not possess, and it has enabled the company to reach it's centenary this year.
Ahem - Morgan Centenary in 2009\http://www.morgan-motor.c...Sorry if my original comment was not clear. The 'something' that I was referring to, was AMs uncanny ability to keep going, even after the administrator or receiver has arrived. I think they have been bust, or nearly bust, about eight times during 100 years.
In comparison to this, Morgan has been brilliant.
Long may it last, and I wish MMC all the best.
James,
Why do you consider combining 3-Wheeler sales with 4-Wheeler sales misleading? They are sales, are they not?
I note that you joined this forum on 16 October, which is timely for this topic, and that you have rather strong views on this. I'm not suggesting you're doing anything other than contributing your perspective to this topic, but I am curious as to your connection, if any, to Morgan.
On a more general note, I've been a Morgan enthusiast since I was a little kid, and I owned a '71 Plus 8 for a very long time (miss it badly). I had the pleasure of meeting Peter and Charles a number of times. People buy Morgans for the truly unique experience that they provide, and part of that experience has been the Morgan family's ongoing involvement in the company. When I visited the factory for the first time, meeting the son and the grandson of the founder was a wonderful and special part of the experience, as was their presence at some of the clubs' events. Losing Charles will be a massive loss to the one-of-a-kind experience that is Morgan
Why do you consider combining 3-Wheeler sales with 4-Wheeler sales misleading? They are sales, are they not?
I note that you joined this forum on 16 October, which is timely for this topic, and that you have rather strong views on this. I'm not suggesting you're doing anything other than contributing your perspective to this topic, but I am curious as to your connection, if any, to Morgan.
On a more general note, I've been a Morgan enthusiast since I was a little kid, and I owned a '71 Plus 8 for a very long time (miss it badly). I had the pleasure of meeting Peter and Charles a number of times. People buy Morgans for the truly unique experience that they provide, and part of that experience has been the Morgan family's ongoing involvement in the company. When I visited the factory for the first time, meeting the son and the grandson of the founder was a wonderful and special part of the experience, as was their presence at some of the clubs' events. Losing Charles will be a massive loss to the one-of-a-kind experience that is Morgan
I guess we all have different reasons for liking Morgans.
I was taken by the "unique driving experience" of an Aero8 mkI. Tested two, bought a mint one. Possibly one of the best maintained cars I have ever bought.
The honeymoon did not last however. The car was very poorly built, the Morgan dealer looking after the car was a bit of a joke, the company could not dispatch the much needed parts reliably and within reasonable delays.
So, the unique driving experience turned into a uniquely poor experience.
I quickly sold the car, never to return again.
I now see Morgan as a complacent company selling image over substance.
I cannot see them compete in the modern world with their dated technology (the trads) and ageing afectionados, with their modern cars (Aero) so poorly built for this segment of the market where people will not tend to accept such low standards.
The 3-wheeler has a chance, but again it is plagued by under-development.
In this context, I am not particularly surprised by the managrial upheaval though of course it might have nothing to do with what I am pointing out.
I was taken by the "unique driving experience" of an Aero8 mkI. Tested two, bought a mint one. Possibly one of the best maintained cars I have ever bought.
The honeymoon did not last however. The car was very poorly built, the Morgan dealer looking after the car was a bit of a joke, the company could not dispatch the much needed parts reliably and within reasonable delays.
So, the unique driving experience turned into a uniquely poor experience.
I quickly sold the car, never to return again.
I now see Morgan as a complacent company selling image over substance.
I cannot see them compete in the modern world with their dated technology (the trads) and ageing afectionados, with their modern cars (Aero) so poorly built for this segment of the market where people will not tend to accept such low standards.
The 3-wheeler has a chance, but again it is plagued by under-development.
In this context, I am not particularly surprised by the managrial upheaval though of course it might have nothing to do with what I am pointing out.
Speedraser said:
James,
Why do you consider combining 3-Wheeler sales with 4-Wheeler sales misleading? They are sales, are they not?
I note that you joined this forum on 16 October, which is timely for this topic, and that you have rather strong views on this. I'm not suggesting you're doing anything other than contributing your perspective to this topic, but I am curious as to your connection, if any, to Morgan.
On a more general note, I've been a Morgan enthusiast since I was a little kid, and I owned a '71 Plus 8 for a very long time (miss it badly). I had the pleasure of meeting Peter and Charles a number of times. People buy Morgans for the truly unique experience that they provide, and part of that experience has been the Morgan family's ongoing involvement in the company. When I visited the factory for the first time, meeting the son and the grandson of the founder was a wonderful and special part of the experience, as was their presence at some of the clubs' events. Losing Charles will be a massive loss to the one-of-a-kind experience that is Morgan
Why do you consider combining 3-Wheeler sales with 4-Wheeler sales misleading? They are sales, are they not?
I note that you joined this forum on 16 October, which is timely for this topic, and that you have rather strong views on this. I'm not suggesting you're doing anything other than contributing your perspective to this topic, but I am curious as to your connection, if any, to Morgan.
On a more general note, I've been a Morgan enthusiast since I was a little kid, and I owned a '71 Plus 8 for a very long time (miss it badly). I had the pleasure of meeting Peter and Charles a number of times. People buy Morgans for the truly unique experience that they provide, and part of that experience has been the Morgan family's ongoing involvement in the company. When I visited the factory for the first time, meeting the son and the grandson of the founder was a wonderful and special part of the experience, as was their presence at some of the clubs' events. Losing Charles will be a massive loss to the one-of-a-kind experience that is Morgan
Edited by PhilRS on Friday 25th October 09:12
Gassing Station | Morgan | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff