MG-Rover.org Forums banner
1 - 20 of 25 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,392 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Crikey, read the press, see the news stories, read other forums. Apparently, BMW did the very best to keep the company alive...and guess what - they really wanted Rover to succeed with its new owners, so it gave them £400m. Awww..isn't that nice of them.

I just don;t understand it. These same people then are ripping the P4 to peices, saying how they asset stripped (what was there to asset strip?) the company and have made billions in pension funds and secretly wanted MGR to die. :eyes:

Absolutly pathetic, sad, immature simple minded bafoons. Sums up the British public who pretend they know something.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,662 Posts
Thats business for you m8. BMW tried their best to make the Rover group work, it failed and they had to ditch it to protect themselves
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
577 Posts
Because they bought into the cult of BMW and think that it's still an aspirational marque? Time's long gone when a BMW was a rare beast that you aspired to own. You see so many of them these days. There's rather an unfortunate whiff of 'Bling-bling' about them to my mind. Very footballer's wife...
 

·
Registered
other_manufacturer
Joined
·
3,679 Posts
red_rover said:
saying how they asset stripped (what was there to asset strip?)
Now, now. calm down Dear! In fairness to BMW they were after buying the 4 x 4 technology of Land Rover, asset stripping and discarding the remains and they made little secret of it right from the start. And in typical Ger-her-man form, they did a sterling job in taking some of the most capable off roaders in the world (Rangie, Disco, Landie), pinching the technology and using it to make one of the worst off roaders in the world (albeit one with a hill descent control like the Rangie, which seems silly as it's incapable of climing anything bigger than a kerb).

Only the Hun could make such a resounding success out of such an under performing lash up.

DD
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
305 Posts
StreetBoy said:
Thats business for you m8. BMW tried their best to make the Rover group work, it failed and they had to ditch it to protect themselves
You're obviously such a wise and knowledgable guy, perhaps you could inform us why, if BMW had the best interests of Rover at heart they:

1. Have admitted they deliberately sabotaged the launch of the Rover 75.

2. Informed the British press that they had up to 80,000 Rover cars built
which were stored in fields and couldn't sell - but most of these cars
couldn't be found anywhere when MGR took over at Longbridge?

3. Refused to let MGR have it's engine building facility Powertrain?

4. Sold off the prestigious Land Rover division thus partly gutting MGR?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,392 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
Add to that, wouldn't give MGR the completed ready for production 45 replacment. Oh, and don't forget, they sold of MGR's design and development grounds.

What a nice company BMW are.
 

·
Registered
other_rover
Joined
·
2,435 Posts
What a pointless thread. Who cares. BMW are a business, MGR are a business. Both companies do whats in their and their shareholders interests. To some extent BMW have helped MGR to others they have not. Like i said who cares, stop causing a pointless debate that will just lead to more arguments.

MGR & BMW both have skeletons in their closets
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
317 Posts
the press need to find a scape goat.. when BMW sold rover.. BMW where to blame for rovers state, now the P4 are the scapegoat.

ive also noticed a comment about BMW forgetting the loan they gave to rover.. this is annoying, becuase they will look good.. even if they are very much toi blame for the state rover are in right now... die to asset striping and stuff.. but im gratefull for the funds to do the 75

rob
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
625 Posts
BMW are so beloved in the media for a few reasons. Mainly their generosity toward hacks/journo's, (They are now one of Breitling's largest accounts) and all new car launches are preceded by their famous fortnight freebie which involves an exotic location, 14 days (All exp. paid) in the top hotels - and those who toe the line are all personally invited to an extra week away following the same theme (Rio de Janerio last year, A few have just come back from Aspen, Colorado as well) without the tiresome test-drives of a new model to endure and write up.

Many a key hack has a wife/partner running around in a fully financed Bimmer/MINI, to save any problems with the hack himself being 'bought', so to speak.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,662 Posts
Truebrit said:
You're obviously such a wise and knowledgable guy, perhaps you could inform us why, if BMW had the best interests of Rover at heart they:

1. Have admitted they deliberately sabotaged the launch of the Rover 75.

2. Informed the British press that they had up to 80,000 Rover cars built
which were stored in fields and couldn't sell - but most of these cars
couldn't be found anywhere when MGR took over at Longbridge?

3. Refused to let MGR have it's engine building facility Powertrain?

4. Sold off the prestigious Land Rover division thus partly gutting MGR?
BMW bought MGR to enter other markets without damaging the BMW brand.

What technology would they have exactly stolen from Land Rover? The X5 and X3 are jacked up saloons- they do not pretend to be decent off-road at all.

They sold Land Rover because it was a going concern thus they could make money on it- billions from Ford. Lucky they did otherwise it would be going down the pan now

Why did the bother investing hugely in cars like the 75 or Range Rover if they thought they were going to ditch it?

This is all conspiracy theory crap that holds no water. BMW is a business like any other- its the fault of whoever allowed them to buy the Rover group in the first place. BMW merely looked after itself and its shareholders in getting rid of Rover like any serious company would
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
36,532 Posts
I have learnt a new acronym today, P4.

I had thought it meant "Concerning Rover, has only one eye (Cyclops)".

Clearly I am wrong. Maybe the Cyclops was not even a P4!

pat
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
881 Posts
Interloper said:
BMW are so beloved in the media for a few reasons. Mainly their generosity toward hacks/journo's, (They are now one of Breitling's largest accounts) and all new car launches are preceded by their famous fortnight freebie which involves an exotic location, 14 days (All exp. paid) in the top hotels - and those who toe the line are all personally invited to an extra week away following the same theme (Rio de Janerio last year, A few have just come back from Aspen, Colorado as well) without the tiresome test-drives of a new model to endure and write up.

Many a key hack has a wife/partner running around in a fully financed Bimmer/MINI, to save any problems with the hack himself being 'bought', so to speak.
Interloper, if all this is true, then hats off to BMW for being so ruthlessly efficient, but it would only take one magazine to break ranks and expose the payola for the rest of the motoring media to lose a lot of credibility. Something like "Motoring Which?" maybe.

OK, I accept that most manufacturers put on lavish model launches and freebies (CAR, I think used regularly to show some of the odder freebies they had received); but if BMW's efforts have got to the stage of actually providing free cars for journalists' families, and that interest is not explicitly declared in every issue of the magazine, then there is something very wrong.

There was a letter in Autocar a couple of months ago from someone asking how many issues of the magazine had not had a BMW story on the cover; Autocar laughed it off, but if there is genuine impropriety going on then it ought to be exposed.
 

·
Premium Member
mg_zt_t
Joined
·
21,916 Posts
Interloper said:
Many a key hack has a wife/partner running around in a fully financed Bimmer/MINI, to save any problems with the hack himself being 'bought', so to speak.
You old cynic .. as if such things ever happen .......... ;)
 

·
Registered
other_manufacturer
Joined
·
679 Posts
I think the most rediculous example of BMW bias in a magazine was a front cover of Car, where they had the slogan "We go to the hymalayas in a the worlds best off roader" and they had a picture of an X5. I didn't think they liked going off road much.
 

·
Registered
other_manufacturer
Joined
·
1,496 Posts
Addict said:
I think the most rediculous example of BMW bias in a magazine was a front cover of Car, where they had the slogan "We go to the hymalayas in a the worlds best off roader" and they had a picture of an X5. I didn't think they liked going off road much.
Yes, but The Himalayas is the name of a luxury villa in deepest darkest Sussex or somewhere, isn't it ? :minxy:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
122 Posts
Dan Lockton said:
OK, I accept that most manufacturers put on lavish model launches and freebies (CAR, I think used regularly to show some of the odder freebies they had received); but if BMW's efforts have got to the stage of actually providing free cars for journalists' families, and that interest is not explicitly declared in every issue of the magazine, then there is something very wrong.

I think you are right, if we are reading astonishing amounts of highly praising coverage for BMW in the motoring press, or any other car for that matter, maybe lists acknowledging competing interests should also be be expressed. This would then allow us to take this into consideration when making a judgement. Scientific and medical studies have to do it when published in their journals.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,485 Posts
Addict said:
I think the most rediculous example of BMW bias in a magazine was a front cover of Car, where they had the slogan "We go to the hymalayas in a the worlds best off roader" and they had a picture of an X5. I didn't think they liked going off road much.
I saw one parked on a verge the other day - what a shame, it put some mud on the sidewalls ;-)
 

·
Registered
other_rover
Joined
·
2,435 Posts
I know that there is a lot here to read, but i think its worth it

Righty. Like i said above this is a pointless debate but it doesn’t look like its going to stop so lets put a little more information on the table.

BMW bought the Rover group in 1994 from BAE. Apparently their intention was to turn it into a global company to fill the lower to mid range sectors. Also they got land rover which was an attempt for BMW to fill some niches in the market. Sounds like a good idea really, as BMW had the finances to do this.

BMW paid £800 million for everything, Rover / Land Rover etc. BMW (Pischetsrieder) thought it would be best to allow Rover to manage themselves (effectively a merger even though effectively it wasn’t as BMW owned Rover). However bosses at BMW didn’t share this view as they where not happy Rover could deliver the results BMW where wanting in the time frames they had set. Whilst these indifferences where going on John Towers resigned and was replaced by Dr Hasselkus.

Now for all those people who say BMW killed Rover that’s not really true, there where many, many more factors than this.

In 1997 (3 years remember after purchase by BMW) Rover had a record year, sales increased 55% and new models were under way. BMW and Rover assumed at this point things where rosey.

In 1998 as some of us may remember the world went into recession, the economic conditions in the UK certainly did not help rover. Sales in the UK dived and the high value of the pound sterling meant exported cars where much less profitable. Rover’s profits dropped like a stone in water.

Near end of 1998 it was the launch of the Rover 75. However Pischesrieders commented about the future of Longbridge plant which was to effect consumer faith due to media speculation.

By the end of that year the situation had become critical. With falling sales, losses continued to mount. The new 75 was running late and BMW chiefs were horrified when they discovered that the first production cars did not meet the planned quality standards. Hasselkus took the blame for Rover's poor performance in 1998.

1999 was here. Rover where in deep. A loss of £650 million. BMW not at all happy about this decided to introduce a task team to make good Rover and its profits. BMW management wanted productivity increased. IF this meant reducing staff so be it. A ruthless approach is what BMW management saw fit. Quality programmes were reinforced throughout Rover. The 75 was no on sale although 6 months late. So for 6 months the Cowley stood still.

Mid 99 BMW where confident enough in Rover. BMW launched a £1.3 billion scheme to redevelop Longbridge, and a further £2 billion on the rest of the UK Rover group. Government pledged £152million also.

Late 1999 BMW where apparently waiting with baited breath hoping the investment would work. Although back in Germany the management where not so happy and the losses Rover where still making caused friction.

Rover / BMW had to contend with poor economic conditions, overcapacity at plants, too many workers thus being employed. Reduced profits due to these economic problems and mounting concern from inside BMW that something has to be done.

BMW bosses where not happy with the losses. Overseers of Rover division reporting back to BMW that it may take to long to turn the Rover from loss making to profitable.

BMW had to decide bail out or carry on. Media speculation now rife, i.e BMW definitely selling Rover when nothing was decided.

As we all know the ending BMW did decide to pull out. In 1999 alone Rover lost £745million. Near to the end over £2million a day was being lost. BMW blamed this on falling sales and the UK not joining the EU.

Early 2000 it was clear that BMW where selling Rover. Around same time it was clear Land Rover was making a profit. However strangely BMW sold LR to Ford for £1.73 billion. Many people thing this was to help cover the costs of actually getting rid of Rover. Quite possible in my opinion.

It has never been made clear what exactly BMW gained from Land Rover as they don’t appear to have used much of their technology. The media lead us to believe that they hi jacked Land Rover just for their technology. Possibly, but they didn’t make good use of it if they did (bit of a waste really).

Mid 2000 (May 8th) BMW finally sell Rover to Phoenix. As we all know for £10.
BMW as part of the sales deal include a £500 million loan.

Estimations suggest BMW spent around £3billion on Rover throughout ownership + the £800 million pound purchase price.

From what i have been able to ascertain. Had BMW retained ownership of Rover, it planned to cut a further 4,000 jobs, raise productivity by up to 30 percent and shift abroad more than half of the current volume of component work currently supplied to Rover. Even then it would still have made a £700 million loss.

I have spent quite a bit of time over the last couple of years researching into MGR/Rover/BMW and I feel it is unacceptable that people should make remarks that BMW killed Rover. For from it.

All companies make mistakes, but i certainly don’t think BMW bought Rover just for land rover pretty expensive white elephant they got themselves if it was.

Many people say BMW did not invest. As i have illustrated they did, in fact the drop in sales can be attributed more too economic reasons rather than anything else.

Unless you know the facts don’t make assumptions. Like i have said before, i don’t think any of us will ever get to know the bare naked truth however if you use an analytical mind and look at the info we do have it is quite clear that Rover is probably as much to blame for its outcome in 2000 as BMW was.

I am not saying BMW are blame free, they are certainly not. But there is more than meets the eye.
 
1 - 20 of 25 Posts
Top