MG-Rover.org Forums banner
1 - 16 of 16 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
61 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Could PVH let MGR ltd die off writing off pensions liabilites, the £500million to pay BMW if MGR get bought and an acceptable way to lay off staff?

Havent PVH moved lots of intellectual property, brands etc to PVH? THe City Rover is part of PVH, lots of property (dealerships) is under PVH and so is the TATA distribution aggreement.

I certainly smell a rat and if rover goes under never to be seen again i will support a full financial enquiry!!! if we never see the RD60 i will b very disappointed
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
35,551 Posts
It would be great if it comes off, but I suspect that it won't be as easy as that.

With regard to the Phoenix Dealerships, allegedly, they are mortgaged up to the hilt.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,131 Posts
I'm not sure exactly who owns what. However, I do know that the Rover brand belongs to B*W and is used under license by MG Rover Group Limited; whilst the MG brand belongs to MG Rover Group Limited and not Phoenix Venture Holdings Limited.

Regards

John
 

·
Registered
other_rover
Joined
·
8,737 Posts
JohnSwitzer said:
I'm not sure exactly who owns what. However, I do know that the Rover brand belongs to B*W and is used under license by MG Rover Group Limited; whilst the MG brand belongs to MG Rover Group Limited and not Phoenix Venture Holdings Limited.

Regards

John
John based on what is in the publc domain you are right. But we don't know if PVH did a smash and grab raid to secure MG in the last few days.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
123 Posts
More to this than meets the eye?

I too am suspicious of what is truly going on. MGRover had a large financial comfort zone when divorced from BMW. We haven't seen much R&D over the last 5 years, though we have seen the Longbridge site sold and the parts business farmed out. We all thought there was substantial amounts of money in the bank, though not enough to develop a new platform. Hence the need for an alliance.

MGRover have also received credits from Brilliance and SAIC as well as a VAT deferrment from the government. What is left is essentially worthless - to be brutally honest the R25/R45 facility is worthless in the modern car manufacturing world (labour intensive to produce old fashioned cars with sales in freefall). The TF and 75 platforms have at most 5 years. K series engines need reworking to meet new emissions standards. The Rover name has been worn into the ground in its biggest market.

Have Phoenix dumped all of their liabilities (old redundant designs, pensions , workforce, BMW loan) into one sacrificial cow, so that the rest of the company (MG, powertrain, Xpower, Studley etc) can survive and prosper? New pensions arrangements and end of the jobs for life agreement make redundancy more palatable for the company, but clearly not for the workforce. Will we see MGRover liquidated, only to see the R75/ZT emerge next week as Wolsely/Riley and MG under a new Phoenix company without liabilities?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,306 Posts
So MGR own MG? Hmmmm maybe, but PVH own MG Sport and Racing Ltd, the TF and the SV. The Tata deal is with PVH too. I think any future deal will involve Phoenix because they are so heavily linked and Phoenix is still going. And doesn't Phoenix own whats left of Longbridge- the elephant house, admin block and visitor centre??

The most important question is who owns RD60??
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
881 Posts
Derrin said:
Have Phoenix dumped all of their liabilities (old redundant designs, pensions , workforce, BMW loan) into one sacrificial cow, so that the rest of the company (MG, powertrain, Xpower, Studley etc) can survive and prosper?
That's how it looks, and to be honest it seems fairly sensible (though maybe cruel to the workforce). It means that the endless saga of BL, with the unprofitable bits pulling down the successful bits, shouldn't be repeated. The cost centres are separated and it should be clearer (to PVH at least) which bits make money.

In addition, if the BMW loan really did have to start being paid back as soon as MG Rover was in profit, then setting up the structure so that it would never make a profit (e.g. using Techtronic to charge MG Rover Group interest on the BMW loan as the Guardian alleged) is, again, certainly sleight-of-hand but if the company's business had been kept private rather than being exposed all the time, this would have been a good idea.

podders said:
The most important question is who owns RD60??
Yes. That would seem to be extremely important.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,896 Posts
In theory BMW can sell the Rover marque to the highest bidder or place it on the shelf if Phoenix decide to concentrate on a slimmed down MG range.

They (BMW) could even lainch their own range of Rover cars !
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,896 Posts
I agree BMW are unlikely to launch a range of Rover cars, I expect BMW will sell the Rover name to SAIC if Phoenix decide to concentrate on MG at Longbridge.
 

·
Registered
mg_6_gt
Joined
·
1,580 Posts
Would BMW be allowed to sell the Rover name?

After all, it was a Ford insistence back in 2000 that they (BMW) must retain the rights to the Rover name rather than sell it to Pheonix so that MGR could not produce a Rover-badged 4x4.

Surely the same contractural agreement would apply if BMW were to try and sell the Rover name to SAIC.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,131 Posts
In theory BMW can sell the Rover marque to the highest bidder or place it on the shelf if Phoenix decide to concentrate on a slimmed down MG range.

No they can't. I would expect Ford to put its foot down on this - as I understand they are entitled to do so. After all... whats to stop Shanghai GM launching a range of Rover 4x4s in the US?

John
 
1 - 16 of 16 Posts
Top