Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo Is my comment.

 

My understanding of that Piece is that NAC have said that any co-operation from SAIC must be about the MG brand only otherwise bog off.

 

yes of course, that what all NAC got on table. IMHO ,in the long term it might be a good thing,

only if ....

1 the SAIC totally trash the Rowie brand.
2 pay £500m or so to NAC for 51% stake.
3 put all the resourses together
(in UK inc NAC MG's 120s people in LB, SAIC's 100-200 design engineers in Warwick)
( in China, the 250k plant in Shanghai and the 250k plant in Nanjin, and built a new R&D centre)

so the R&D centres( in UK and China) can operate 24hrs a day,
. finally buy the Rover back from Ford!!!

 

as above.....

 

Why should NAC take the smaller stake? I'd prefer to see NAC get the 51%...

 

Possibly because SAIC have 15 cars in development at present? I'm not neccesarily against SAIC, especially if the outcome is better for Longbridge. As someone else said I too would like to see them buy Rover or even Land Rover at that point. SAIC/ NAC could give all the Brit marques the push they need in China and this could seriously hurt the Germans

 

any comments?

There is nothing new in this news is there? The author is talking about events 40 days ago.

Since you speek Chinese rather well, you could have chosen a more accurate title!

 

Well there is some new stuff here- that NAC may be willing to give up a stake in the business. They've always denied it so far...

 

Strikes me as pragmatism - if the right deal is there anything is possible.

It certainly does not look like a plea at all.

 

Strikes me as pragmatism - if the right deal is there anything is possible.

It certainly does not look like a plea at all.

Agree. Emotions aside, it would make a tremendous amount of business sense for NAC and SAIC to work together ...

• Joint purchasing negotiations on common MG7/750 components ... maximum leverage = greater margins.
• Combined MG7/750 production = fewer overheads (production & management) = greater margins.
• Dealer network combined = higher volumes, greater margins. Shared distribution/logistics.
• Greater potential for financing/investment if NAC/SAIC combine, therefore greater probability for the long term success of MG.
• Years of experience of SAIC working with VW and GM can only complement NAC's fledgling foray into car manufacturing. In return, SAIC gain access to a western brand (MG).
• Combined R&D effort will accelerate the replacement (as opposed to refreshing) of ZR and ZS (+ stop us all whingeing!!)

What we have to remember is that both SAIC and NAC are nationalised Chinese companies. Wouldn't is be just as daft for the government there to encourage NAC and SAIC to fight each other as it was when BL brands in the UK were able to internally compete against each other in the 1970s for the same market segments?

In regard to Longbridge, I don't think there's a need to worry as surely SAIC will see the same logic in retaining Longbridge as NAC has done?

BTW, I believe SAIC did act disingenuously in their dealings with MGR in early 2005 but - as some other poster pointed out - NAC are competing in a world of massive global car companies, such as Toyota, who are also actively operating in and investigating additional low-cost country manufacturing.

NAC and SAIC need all the help they can get to compete with those guys and we should put our feelings aside and support a tie-up in the interests of a more certain and stronger future for MG.

 

According to NAC last week, they aren't interested in selling any kind of stake in NAC-MG. That was reported in Just-Auto.com

 

Strikes me as a severe case of Chinese Whispers.... I'll get my coat

Regards

John

 

Strikes me as a severe case of Chinese Whispers.... I'll get my coat

Regards

John

Someone had to say it! :bgrin2:

 

Unless they are going to fully merge, whats the point?

You could reasonably expect all of the MGR IPR that they fought over to be superceded in the next 10 years anyway. The N-series will have to be replaced or at least joined by another unit, the R75 platform will have to be replaced, the TF will have to go... The only things that will be 'MGR' are some of the robots, some of the dies, some of the presses and machinery and the brands themselves.

They might pool knowledge to 'refine' what they are each using; to make sense of the the bits they have, but when it comes to the next step what happens? Do they develope an engine between them? Share platforms? If they do that then they are pretty much bound to each other as neither has anything else they could practically use to remain 'independant'.

 

I was reading somewhere that XPART had said that technology and parts that are used in SAIC's Roewe 750 are not compatible with the Rover 75, so current owners shouldn't rely on Roewe items fitting their 75s or ZT's, or them being a direct replacement.

With that in mind, and the likelihood that the MG7 will continue along the same lines as the Rover 75 and MG ZT, then I can't see that many synergies between the MG7 and Roewe 750 without one of them having a redesign.

 

I wondered this too-would a Roewe dash fit a ZT for example. If this is the case then it makes even less sense as Roewe have already gone so far down that road away from MGR and NAC products.

I guess Roewe stuff is like 'pattern parts' for MGR cars, Xpart would never be able to recommend them even if, after a smack from a hammer, the bits might fit.

Engine-wise though its another matter- they'd be interchangeable. Does Roewe have access to EuroIV- maybe thats what they want?

 

SAIC-MG in this year. maybe.

 

Do you work for SAIC? Lives in China, Owns a R75...

BTW, I can answer no to all 3.

 

I hope not, SAIC pulled out in 2004/5 they've had their chance. They should concentrate on Ssangyong.

 

There is actually some new news in this article:

http://auto.sina.com.cn/news/2007-06-13/1521283964.shtml

It appears to say that someone has reported that the Vice-Mayor of Shanghai accompanied by SAIC has made a visit to Nanjing. Odd thing is it doesn't say that they visited NAC MG, just Nanjing city...

Maybe nvc could confirm this translation...

Last report we had of SAIC visiting Nanjing, they went on one of Nanjing MG's factory tours pretending to be tourists.

 

Uho i see: MG Roewe aghhh!!! :scary:

 

I'd be worried for Longbridge if SAIC were involved- they didn't want to save it pre-collapse and after the bump they publicly stated that they saw no future for Longbridge and had no interest in manufacturing on the site or anywhere in the UK. I personally think, if they had won the PwC auction, they would have taken what they wanted and left the rest to Tesco.

I doubt they have changed their mind, unless the Chinese home market is viewing MG as a more 'genuine' product than Roewe and they are getting worried. But has SAIC really seen the error of its ways or is it trying to buy/control/crush its main opponent which may be financially weaker but has a lovely new factory and lots of global press?

I think SAIC would do the same trick if they got NAC- shut Longbridge again, strip any useful equipment, close NAC and rebrand Roewe as MG or Austin. MG is launched now and so is in the public eye in China as a proper foreign company that has become a Chinese acquisition with firm British roots. I would imagine SAIC want to nip it in the bud before sales start building and it does them any damage. If they got Longbridge I think we can kiss goodbye to any idea of a TF replacement.
All public announcments on MGR by SAIC were along the lines of "We have everything we need, we don't need MGR now, we have enough to build our own cars successfully".

-They are either worried by NACs progress and the potential it has to harm them, or
-They have now seen NACs strategy (manufacturing and PR), envy it and wish they'd done the same, or
-They are having genuine issues making sense of the IPR they bought and need the missing pieces that NAC have, or
-They are being practical and recognise that a level of co-operation could benefit both parties.

My message to NAC (for what its worth) is give the MG7 a chance before accepting invitations from SAIC. Leopards, spots, changing....?

 

I'd be worried for Longbridge if SAIC were involved- they didn't want to save it pre-collapse and after the bump they publicly stated that they saw no future for Longbridge and had no interest in manufacturing on the site or anywhere in the UK. I personally think, if they had won the PwC auction, they would have taken what they wanted and left the rest to Tesco.

Erm, no.

They'd teamed up with Mr. Leach's Ma8ma outfit to run Longbridge. What they would have been running or what they would have made, nobody knows.

But hopefully in the fullness of time we'll find out and then we'll be able to say with a degree certainty whether or not NAC was the best we could have hoped for.

Regards

John

 

Personally I think NAC have politely told them to go take a hike. Drop the Roewe project indeed...

 

Can anyone please advise how I can get an attachment onto this thread as I have the original SAIC/Magma press release from 15.07.05 stating " ... intends to form a new company to recommence production at Longbridge"?

 

You need to be a supporter - see here for more details: http://forums.mg-rover.org/faq.php?faq=subs_faq_item

 

I thought SAIC themselves put in the bid, not Magma, and weren't prepared to meet the conditions, according to PwC. Maybe they thought NAC weren't seriously bidding or wouldn't get their bid in in time?

 

Ive just thought, could this be a link up for Austin?

 

Talking about the SAIC bid, as I recall it was not that they weren't prepared to meet the conditions, more a case of SAIC's bid containing conditions.

On the other hand, NAC's bid contained fewer or no conditions.

 

Thats how I remember it too Steve

 

My perspective is on the original situation with NAC/GBSC, SAIC/Magma and the original MGR/SAIC JV is that each scenario's intent back in 2005 was a JV with a local UK company (be it MGR, Magma or GBSC) having some equity or contolling interest in Longbridge with the Chinese senior partner controlling the Chinese end. In other words ..


MGR/SAIC JV : UK = MGR; SAIC = China
SAIC : UK = Magma; SAIC = China
NAC : UK = GBSC (or other); NAC = China

 

Well what we have now is none of the above- a totally unplanned situation:bigeyes:

 

So they were going to bid with Magma but went on alone at the last minute?