The 2003 figures came from the shareholders' report (made public) but where would the 2004 figure ("zero") come from? MGR hasn't published a 2004 report yet.I have read an article yesterday that said that MGR spended just 4.5m for R&D during 2003 and zero 2004. If this is really true, I can´t imagine that this often mentioned "3 or 4 models almost ready for production" has much truth in it.
There's the public face of any company and the reality. MGR had a plan for new models so of course went on recruiting. But by October when the auditors were in and the restyled cars and the CR had clearly failed in the marketplace, Management must have known time was running out. It was in November that Towers had to preamaturely announce the deal because the suppliers were getting worried (and remember using Just in Time they would have known what the real production figures were).Steve McF said:Dan,
as another engineer in the industry, I can concur that MGR/PVH has indeed been advertising for engineers and contractors on longer term contracts than they have been offering over the last couple of years.
Ads have been in magazines such as Professional Engineering and Automotive Engineer, and these were full page ads, with an outline drawing of an SV at the top. They implied that they were recruiting development and design engineers as well as more senior project managers/principal engineers, and that there was the opportunity for overseas travel.
So if they really believed that this deal was coming to something, they certainly weren't expecting this trouble at the last minute. There have already been MGR engineers going out to China.
This is what I don't understand. If it wasn't already cut and dry, why hand the jewels over upfront? Unless of course PVH was misled and dropped once SAIC had got it's hands on what it wanted. :cus: