MG/Rover the end was known

[Jeff Turbo]

Very interesting read
http://www.publications.parliament.u...d/1075/mg1.pdf

[PhilBill]

The politicians from Thatcher on wanted rid of it without getting blood on their hands. At the same time Leyland was nationalised in the mid 70s, VW, Citroen, Renault, Fiat and the American 'Big Three' were all in trouble. Our politicians look to the City of London, who make money by circulating paper and by fraud. They kept BL/Rover on a drip so that voters in Midlands marginal seats, key to winning elections wouldn't blame them for its demise. But not enough to secure its future. They were busy giving grants to get Toyota, Honda and Nissan factories. Old factory buildings were designed around old production methods and hamper the productivity of modern production. They were always quite happy to see Rover die on the hands of the next government, or private sector so they could cry crocodile tears.

You can hardly say that the cars made by the French and Italians are much better than Rovers when they got their act together in the 1990s. Why try and make money by making things when you can make it by making emperors new clothes? 'Quantitative Easing' printing money electronically and giving it to banks is now over £300,000,000,000 (£300Bn), plus the £65,000,000,000 they put in 2008. The banks are sitting on most of it. I doubt Rover ever got more than £1Bn.

[ayrshirelad32]

The french and Italian Governments somehow or other managed to keep their car companies going. Indeed the french Government just gave PSA GROUP rather large loan to keep them going. The money that MG/Rover group needed to keep going, was a drop in the ocean that Hm Government gave to the banks, to bail them out of the hole they had put the themselves and the country in. No matter what the news says we still are in a recession that the banking industry caused and the reason Ford are closing the Transit factory. A global slow down in car/van buying. Rover might have survived had they scaled down the workforce or been given long enough to update the car range. When Bae owned rover little or now investment was made thus when Bmw got hold of it the damage was all ready done. However had the 75 had Bmw engines form the get go, then the head gasket issuses that the car suffered from woulnd have been an issue, thus the car might have sold better. The cityrover was never ever going to be a success that was neeeded. Sadly it is a tale of lost opertunites and mismanagement. The real loosers as always were the employees who directly or indirectly depended on the place for their wages and livihoods. Sadly that is always the case.

[David3500]

When Bae owned rover little or now investment was made thus when Bmw got hold of it the damage was all ready done. However had the 75 had Bmw engines form the get go, then the head gasket issuses that the car suffered from woulnd have been an issue, thus the car might have sold better. The cityrover was never ever going to be a success that was neeeded. Sadly it is a tale of lost opertunites and mismanagement. The real loosers as always were the employees who directly or indirectly depended on the place for their wages and livihoods. Sadly that is always the case.

Under BAE (British Aerospace) the Rover Group produced a range of models that under the Rover and Land Rover brands were considered to have high aspirational value, backed up by some inspiring marketing and advertising. The company [Rover Group] was also making profits, although these were ultimately not sufficient to meet the need for all-new models for the Rover Cars division or the increasing demands of Land Rover. All this was achieved against tiny investment received from BAE. This really does highlight the huge achievement of Rover Cars in launching three all-new model ranges in 1995 (MGF, HHR 400 Series and R3 200 Series).

The head gasket issue did not become widespread knowledge until after BMW had sold off the remains of the company in 2000. I think it was in 2002 when the BBC programme Watchdog first aired this particular story.

The Rover 75's sales success was hampered by a number of factors. Firstly, its launch at the 1998 British Motor Show (at which I was present) was effectively torpedoed when BMW Group Chairman, Bernd Pischetsrieder, decided to use the occasion to lament the poor productivity of the Longbridge factory and also the high value of Sterling (£). The marketing strategy under BMW had, since 1996, focused on conveying messages of relaxation and comfort (i.e. "Relax, it's a Rover"), denying their English company the opportunity to develop the all-important 'halo' derivatives with dynamic credentials that Rover Cars knew its customers wanted (including for the 75). BMW also insisted on charging a premium price for the Rover product when the reality was it still had some way to go to be perceived in the same light as Audi, BMW or Mercedes Benz. This latter point was not helped by the limitation of the licensing agreement for the HHR Rover 400 Series with Honda which reduced the ability of Rover Cars to improve its styling and interior packaging.

There are other numerous factors I could mention, but what I have already put forward ultimately suggests that there was not one or two main factors that lead to the collapse of MG Rover Group. For me, it is particularly sad as I l have seen the brand I have so much affection for (Rover) take the flack of most of the negativity from the company's collapse compared to MG. Thank goodness I am also a Land Rover enthusiast.

And some of the informal terminology used in that political report is positively amateurish rather than academic!!

[Monty&Mgf]

The end of the road for rover

Very interesting read
http://www.publications.parliament.u...d/1075/mg1.pdf

If anyone wants some more info this is a good book
End of the Road: The True Story of the Downfall of Rover
Rover desperatly tried to get honda to take there ownership stake upto 51% to stop bmw but they wouldnt. When they took it over they left it for 4 years doing nothing with managment and little with restructuring. They killed off the metro 1/3 of rovers profits without replacment. They then allowed rover to go ahead later with the new mini design which rover had had on the cards before takeover. BMW to survive needed 2 types of car for its complete portfolio which were a small car and a 4x4. BMW took advantage of all of landrovers designs to make its X5 then flogged it to ford for a billion more than they brought the entire company for. They also whilst making the 75 made an unpresidented anouncment on the day of its release anouncing that the company was struggling.....if you heard that would you buy one?! proberbly not. They also scuppered exports of the mgf so it wouldnt interfere to much with their roadster infact they didnt even want the mgf it was only allowed to be produced as it was nearing completion and was never really altered until the trophy in 2000. People also mention how could mg rover waste the 500million BMW gave them, well apart from it not being enough to cover any form of redesigning a new car the 500 million (and you will like this) was the amount that BMW worked out would keep the company just running long enough to take them over 3 years, why 3 years?! well as long as a company such as rover doesnt go bankrupt within this timescale then the company who sold it has no liability at all. They were fround upon by even the german public as it was seen as a betrayl and unfortunatley the car that has made them the most money and kept them going through the hard times is yes the Mini and for that as much as i dont like the fact that MG is Chinese owned i hope they rise up and give them a taste of their own medicine.

[Guest]

Asset strippers (bmw)

My brother worked on Mini production in Oxford in the early 2000's and saw at first hand bmw managements appalling behaviour towards line workers, inc sacking staff a few days before Xmas (inc a young girl diagnosed with terminal cancer! who walked out on the spot!)

He told me how it seemed that the management wanted to wipe out all signs that Rover ever existed inc telling a line worker who turned up in football shirt sponsored by Rover at the time to take it off....

bmw completley redesigned the Mini as soon as they could inc change for change sake (even the number of slats in the grille...) re-done by german designers of course....

Also they were changing parts supply to german suppliers....

The Rover group was simply asset stripped by bmw... zee germans look after their own...we dont...... thats why our trains are being built in germany our gas and electric and water is owned by the french or Canadians etc

A succession of goverments have disregarded UK manufacturing in favour of backing the UK as a city financial power house...well thats worked out well???
If only they had taken better care of uk manufacturing in general....JLR, MG Rover and Mini would be one hell of British company....

[PhilBill]

BAE also asset stripped Rover of a lot of sites for property development before selling it to BMW. Rover got none of the money. The value of those sites was how Thatcher bribed BAE to take Rover off the government's hands.

BAE is the company that currently has the government tied in contractual knots to buy two aircraft carriers that the government can't afford the new aircraft for. They scrapped or sold off the Navy Harriers to the Americans. This is as useful as a chocolate fireguard. They plan to 'share' aka rely on the French for their carrier if they need one.

In the report the politicians make no distinction between the Japanese with just assembly plants and Rover actually developing vehicles in the UK.

UK ownership was irrelevant to the politicians. When the carp hits the fan, and a multinational has the choice of plant closures at home or in the UK, it is the UK that gets it even when productivity is good. Peugeot Ryton outperformed the French plants and they still axed it. They got EU money to replace it in Slovakia, some of which came from the UK taxpayer.

Is it a coincidence that all that money went to the banks and Tony Blair now works for Goldman-Sachs and is making multi-millions for himself? Or that the people in the treasury came from the City of London and will go back there after their stint in the government?

Recently a Tory Euro-Sceptic likened the UK being in Europe to being handcuffed to a corpse. Strange - the French have a £3bn trade surplus with us and an aircraft carrier. It makes you wonder just who the corpse is supposed to be, and who was responsible.