MG-Rover.org Forums banner
1 - 10 of 10 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
37 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I know it has been touch and go for a while now, with more company owner changes that you could shake a stick at. But what have been the factors that have finally brought this situation upon MG Rover. Why was this deal so crucial to the survival of the company.

I think many people like myself will want to know what caused this tragedy and try to understand how this has come about.

If you drive around Sussex like i do i see so many MG/Rovers on the road, new and old models you would think that they are selling well.

Whats the deal?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,899 Posts
Personally i think the government intervention made SAIC a bit twitchy....they came up with new terms (money where your mouth is with regards the 100m loan), government told em and p4 to swivel....told the public they offered the loan but saic pulled out. Talk of the bridging loan woudnt even have happened if we werent so close to election time.

Tbh you cant believe a single thing any of the political parties say at this moment in time!!
 

·
Registered
mg_zs
Joined
·
98 Posts
MattL said:
Personally i think the government intervention made SAIC a bit twitchy....
I agree with you there - as soon as I read that the government were getting involved my heart sank. Having Gordon B & Co. plead for MRG's survival surely confirmed to SAIC that things were bad - all they had to do was wait. Couldn't they have let well alone?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3 Posts
I think you've got to to go back to the days of BMC and British leyland. Trade union problems in the seventies and all that. Basically they never really recovered from it. Car companies have to be very big and very rich to survive in the cut throat high volume car market of today. Rover simply are'nt big enough to compete.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
989 Posts
theres lots of reasons. british leyland, british aerospace, honda, bmw, the press (especially clarkson and the guardian), p4 , saic. no one knows which of the forementioned nailed the most nails into the rover coffin.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
881 Posts
I think it became a self-fulfilling prophecy. First it was the press giving MG Rover 6 months, back in 2000. Since then every newspaper and magazine article has bemoaned the lack of new models, and even when substantial positive work has been done (all the Z-cars, RWD conversion of 75, SV, hybrid car development, consultancy work for Sonalika, facelifts of all the models), it's dismissed as either irrelevant or re-heating old stuff. And every article, every Clarkson, every opinion leader has given the opinion, that, basically, you'd be foolish to buy an MGR product, not just because the product is poor but because the company won't last. The SAIC deal was never presented as something positive ("British company expands into fastest expanding car market in the world with new joint venture") but only as "last chance for MG Rover." So it becomes seen as the last chance, and then becomes the last chance.

So people stop buying, because every opinion they hear or read is negative. And sales fall, so cash flow falls, and the papers stick the knife in even more. And the suppliers start to lose confidence. And the papers suggest that suppliers will start pulling out soon. So some of them do. And that gets so much publicity, that all the others do. So production has to stop. And then the press suggests the company is going into administration. Then Hewitt announces that it actually has. And then it actually does, because there's no choice left.

Maybe that's cynical, but that's the way I remember it. A lot of the press negativity has been personalised by focusing it on thr Phoenix Four. They have been seen as greedy for rearranging the company's assets to protect them in case of trouble (i.e. now); Jon Moulton is seen as "a great chance missed" although he would have done exactly the same with the assets, but sacked probably 5,000 workers in addition.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,068 Posts
Dan Lockton said:
I think it became a self-fulfilling prophecy. First it was the press giving MG Rover 6 months, back in 2000. Since then every newspaper and magazine article has bemoaned the lack of new models, and even when substantial positive work has been done (all the Z-cars, RWD conversion of 75, SV, hybrid car development, consultancy work for Sonalika, facelifts of all the models), it's dismissed as either irrelevant or re-heating old stuff. And every article, every Clarkson, every opinion leader has given the opinion, that, basically, you'd be foolish to buy an MGR product, not just because the product is poor but because the company won't last. The SAIC deal was never presented as something positive ("British company expands into fastest expanding car market in the world with new joint venture") but only as "last chance for MG Rover." So it becomes seen as the last chance, and then becomes the last chance.

So people stop buying, because every opinion they hear or read is negative. And sales fall, so cash flow falls, and the papers stick the knife in even more. And the suppliers start to lose confidence. And the papers suggest that suppliers will start pulling out soon. So some of them do. And that gets so much publicity, that all the others do. So production has to stop. And then the press suggests the company is going into administration. Then Hewitt announces that it actually has. And then it actually does, because there's no choice left.

Maybe that's cynical, but that's the way I remember it. A lot of the press negativity has been personalised by focusing it on thr Phoenix Four. They have been seen as greedy for rearranging the company's assets to protect them in case of trouble (i.e. now); Jon Moulton is seen as "a great chance missed" although he would have done exactly the same with the assets, but sacked probably 5,000 workers in addition.
Nail on the head, great post
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,065 Posts
Er...Yes well "Somebody" (Me) has been pointing out the worring facts for the last 3 YEARS!

I Mean where are the Spyshots of them testing new cars...i NEVER belived the Bul about TWR etc. They simply NEVER did the R+D, than there the productivety..MGR Worker=16.4 cars a year......Nissan 320 cars a year... I mean come on that 20 TIMES better.

Nope, the die was cast and BMW woke up, and i wonder just What John M would have done?

Anyway i see BMW getting the Badge back and dropping it on some reshelled Minis and possably 1 Series .....MG WILL RETURN, BUT that's little comfort for Longbridge.
Mega
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,068 Posts
Mega said:
Er...Yes well "Somebody" (Me) has been pointing out the worring facts for the last 3 YEARS!

I Mean where are the Spyshots of them testing new cars...i NEVER belived the Bul about TWR etc. They simply NEVER did the R+D, than there the productivety..MGR Worker=16.4 cars a year......Nissan 320 cars a year... I mean come on that 20 TIMES better.

Nope, the die was cast and BMW woke up, and i wonder just What John M would have done?

Anyway i see BMW getting the Badge back and dropping it on some reshelled Minis and possably 1 Series .....MG WILL RETURN, BUT that's little comfort for Longbridge.
Mega
I'll probably get into bother, but I don't care .


MEGA, PLEASE Fornicate Off
 
1 - 10 of 10 Posts
Top