MG-Rover.org Forums banner
1 - 20 of 27 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
373 Posts
Here's what I wrote:

"The vindictive battering MG Rover has taken from the press is a disgrace. Few facts, just inuendo and speculation. These people write as if there iare no consequences of their actions.

MG Rover sells fast, well-made, reliable cars. You cannot but be impressed after driving one. BUT instead of trying one for themselves, most people accept the prejudices of others and don't make their minds up for themselves.

We the British aspire to driving just Audis, BMWs and Mercs. It's a disgrace. Shame on us." :cus:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
373 Posts
Check out The Guardian's 'newsblog' page.

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/news/archives/uk_news/2005/04/05/rover_stalls.html

Check out these comments...

These are nailbiting moments for thousands of workers at MG Rover, the last British mass car maker.
Talks in Shanghai between Rover and its putative rescuer, Shanghai Automative Industry Corporation (SAIC), have stalled as SAIC realises the parlous state of Rover's finances. According to media reports, Rover is virtually insolvent, although the company denies this.
Undoubtedly, the Chinese are seeking to extract maximum concessions knowing they have Rover and the government over a barrel. Rover needs SAIC to have a shot at survival and the last thing Labour needs is a big company collapse in the middle of an election campaign. As the 6,000 Rover workers at Longbridge await their fate, the finger-pointing has already begun. At rmfr.com, Mark puts the blame squarely on the Phoenix consortium which took over Rover four years ago.
He says the management invested little in the company and gave it no strategic direction. But he is against a government bail-out. "People don't buy these cars anymore, and nothing done in Whitehall is going to change that," he argues. It is a sentiment shared by Snafu who thinks Rover is producing "rubbish cars".
John Cranage at the Birmingham Post believes that the pensions "black hole" that so preoccupies SAIC - the Chinese worry that they would be liable for Rover's pension fund should the British company go bankrupt - is a problem of the government's own making.
Cranage argues that by denying companies the tax credit on the share dividend income that forms a large part of their annual income, the chancellor, Gordon Brown, has been "robbing the nation's pension funds". Whoever is to blame, the government is preparing for the worst if the talks in Shanghai collapse.
Ministers have started preparing for a possible collapse by promising to give financial aid to workers if they become redundant. It is also hard to miss the economic symbolism of this drama. Here is western company turning to a Chinese firm for salvation. The episode says much about China's growing economic clout.
Posted by Mark Tran at April 5, 2005 10:27 AM


Comments



All these weasel words about -sustainability and the environmemt from our leaders and the Guardian! Close the damned car factories down. Car culture is at the heart of our problems. **** all is been done... How much longer..and as for China!!!


Comments posted by: mistamusa at April 5, 2005 12:20 PM


About those pensions, perhaps Rover/MG
can persuade the courts to void its obligations. This was done here by a federal court last Fall. The sale of coal mines was at issue and the drag came when the potential buyer balked at assuming the contractual obligations of the seller toward its miners. The obligation was to pay medical insurance. The judge signed and those miners (retired and not) lost their coverage. Simple. Just focus on the voice of the market. What after all is a contract, a responsibiity, and a promise when there's capital to be rescued? Have a nice day.


Comments posted by: Paul Hudon at April 5, 2005 12:35 PM


Here in Birmingham it will be be devastating for jobs not just at Rover, but in ALL industries, even those outside of the car manufacturing sector. But Rover/Phoenix and the Govt. knew this was coming - what was done about it pro-actively??
The most pertinent comment in the article above is "People don't buy these cars anymore, and nothing done in Whitehall is going to change that". Too true, and SAIC won't be able to change that easily.
It WILL be interesting to see what line the Govt./Labour Party now take, with 5th May looming...


Comments posted by: Mike Allen at April 5, 2005 01:30 PM


rubbish british industry
don't save them,SAIC,please


Comments posted by: red guard at April 5, 2005 01:58 PM


It is clear that Phoenix intended to find a partner for MG Rover (i.e. sell)
from the start and the management have been stuck in the mindset of just trying
to make the company look superficially more attractive to bidders rather than
ensuring long term independent survival. I find it hard to believe that the
SAIC deal will ensure survival either. The chinese will learn from MG Rover and
the UK operations will gradually be left to wither. MG Rover management have
wasted time and money with ridiculous projects like buying a niche italian
sports car company and trying to sell the hopeless Indian car in the extremely
competitive european small car market. Meanwhile the mainstream MG cars have
been left undeveloped.


Comments posted by: Mark Johnson at April 5, 2005 04:09 PM


Reading the above comments, I'm ashamed to be of the same species, never mind nationality, as their authors.

Rubbish British industry? Rubbish people more like.

Close MG Rover? Great, let's all go on the dole. We might still be able to get a BMW with a loan from a loan shark.


Comments posted by: ian flynn at April 5, 2005 04:13 PM
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,462 Posts
just added my oppinions, the more you write though the more you have to say, I think perhaps my was largely against the media misguiding the general public.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
31,560 Posts
well, Dan got his printed, as did Red_Rover.

Although oddly enough, mine wasn't.

Well, that's a suprise. :eyes:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
101 Posts
Have commented too. I don't know if anyone noticed the lovely part from the autoexpress (I think) journalist at the top of the page when he asserted that the only reason you would buy a 45 was due to loyalty to Rover and because of it's price and reliabilty. How many car manufacturers would love to have cars that people were loyal to and which were acknowledged to be both value for money and reliable! Crass fools the lot of them it seems.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
373 Posts
Richard Bremner used to write for Car, maybe he still does. What he wrote wasn't so bad, considering the mis-informed [email protected] we've been subjected to for months. At least he knows his onions...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
881 Posts
I don't know if anyone noticed the lovely part from the autoexpress (I think) journalist at the top of the page when he asserted that the only reason you would buy a 45 was due to loyalty to Rover and because of it's price and reliabilty. How many car manufacturers would love to have cars that people were loyal to and which were acknowledged to be both value for money and reliable! Crass fools the lot of them it seems.
Richard Bremner used to work for Austin-Rover in the '80s if I remember right; I always enjoyed his stuff in CAR in the early '90s.
But have to say that he does seem to have fallen at least slightly into Autocar's BMW love-in since he joined.

Like you say, if an influential journalist recognises that people buy a 45 because of:
-brand loyalty
-value
-reliability

then MGR doesn't seem to be doing too badly.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,119 Posts
SteveChilds said:
well, Dan got his printed, as did Red_Rover.

Although oddly enough, mine wasn't.

Well, that's a suprise. :eyes:
Seems like the Guardian's is automatic! :hyper:

Doesn't look like mine is going to get through to the BBC... :(
 

·
Registered
rover_45
Joined
·
310 Posts
Put my twopennyworth in as well. Looks like the majority are in favour of MGR. I guessed most posts were from people on this site
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,462 Posts
well says they last updated at 5:02 , so how often do they update ?? or is this the stage when they check the abuse.... comments we made ?? I told them to visit this website, but perhaps thats advertising so they won't post mine....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
101 Posts
iaan said:
Richard Bremner used to write for Car, maybe he still does. What he wrote wasn't so bad, considering the mis-informed [email protected] we've been subjected to for months. At least he knows his onions...
I agree that this wasn't the worst thing I have ever read about MGR products but what he said about the 45, which I think we can all agree is, with the exception of CityRover, the most difficult Rover to market, was couched as criticism, not a compliment.

I am sure that there are some motoring journalists out there who do know their stuff (I'm just not in a mood to acknowledge that at present) but too often I have read articles that have quite clearly been written by somebody who want's to say "I like this car, it is good" but actually says (after consultation from the editor no doubt), this car is old, it drives well but..., it looks good but remember underneath it's old, etc and it ends up reading as if even the good bits are somehow to it's detriment just because the design didn't roll out a week last Monday. And they are the good ones! As for the rest, well just don't get me started...
 
1 - 20 of 27 Posts
Top