So what does the future hold for MG Rover and its 6,000+ employees, not to mention the thousands of jobs that are sustained in its supply chain? Will the company soon cease to exist? Or will the talks in Shanghai bear fruit? Even then, will that just be delaying the inevitable? It seems the company is a dead duck - and the public seem to have got the message loud and clear if the slumps in sales are anything to go by. Was this a self forfilling prophesy brought about by press reports? Even more importantly, just how many question marks can I use in one paragraph?

from the birmingham post



Let Rover 'go to wall'

Apr 6 2005

By John Duckers And John Cranage


The Government should let MG Rover go to the wall instead of "pouring good money after bad", a West Midland business group has said.

The comment came as Harold Musgrove, a former chairman and chief executive of MG Rover predecessor Austin Rover, described the carmaker's situation as "very serious indeed".

According to Bob Michaelson, regional chairman of the Institute of Directors, the £100 million the Government is said to be prepared to contribute to a rescue package for the Longbridge manufacturer would be better spent on job creation and re-training the company's 6,100 employees.

"Spending £100 million in the West Midlands is a far wiser use of the money than sending £ 100 million to Shanghai to prop up what is clearly a struggling company with a bleak future," he said.

"The subject of MG Rover is naturally very emotive but as a taxpayer I want to see the best use made of our resources, not just for the next month but for the future and to support generations that are just coming into work."

Mr Michaelson was speaking as talks aimed at rescuing the floundering life-saving joint venture between MG Rover and Shanghai Automotive Industry Corporation continued yesterday in China after appearing to have stalled on Monday night.

He continued: "The collapse of MG Rover would be a disaster for the West Midlands, but it would be up to all the organisations and local authorities in the region to pull together to mitigate the effects and create something positive out of a negative.

"Many of us remember the day when Round Oak Steel Works closed and 2,000 people walked out for the final time.

"Now that area has been revitalised and the Merry Hill shopping centre, the Waterfront business park and associated hotels, restaurants and pubs have created more than 10,000 jobs.

"We need to rediscover that spirit and get behind the employees of MG Rover to support them and try and ensure that their transition from initial redundancy to gainful and sustainable employment is as smooth and painless as possible."

In the event that MG Rover collapsed, it would be important that fair value is realised for all the company's assets and that the Longbridge site be made available as soon as possible to facilitate both inward investment by companies moving in to the area and promote and support start-ups in the south west of Birmingham, Mr Michaelson added.

A second business organisation warned that the collapse of MG Rover would have a " profound" impact on smaller supply chain companies.

"Many of the manufacturers involved in supplying MG Rover will be pushed close to the brink if the rescue package fails to materialise," said Nick Goulding, chief executive of the Forum of Private Business.

"If firms involved in the supply chain are forced to close it will cause grave problems for the remaining car producers across the country.

"Many may be forced to look elsewhere, probably abroad, for new suppliers and the job losses that follow will have a grave impact on the region's and the UK economy."

Mr Musgrove, aged 74, who ran Austin Rover from 1980 to 1986, said he was unaware of the financial situation at MG Rover, but added: "It would be folly to think it is anything other than very serious indeed."

But he insisted the company did still have assets which others would want - the K-series engine is one of the best in the world; the ability to design and manufacture suspension units; the MG image and a Longbridge workforce who were among "the finest carmakers".

However he went on: "I am sad that it has been allowed to get into this appalling state."

Giving his support to the workforce and offering hopes that the Chinese would stay involved, he nevertheless warned: "We must not fool ourselves or anybody else. Whatever we decide to do, it must be profitable."

Its tragic, but simple economics will dictate that Rover has no future. The best it can hope for is that becomes part of one of the multi national car companies like Ford so that he MG marque continues. However, production at Longbridge will cease completely within 3 years.

I don't care for Rovers... or most large cars for that matter.

It seems production has been halted at Longbridge until the £100m bridging loan comes through. Some suppliers are refusing to deliver because they think they wont get paid.

I dont think production will ever restart :(

Rover was always going to struggle, and having to fight so much bad press hasn't helped. If it's true that production has stopped because suppliers are scared of not being paid, then those sections of the press who seem to have really had it in for Rover finally seem to have got their way.

Rover was always going to struggle, and having to fight so much bad press hasn't helped. If it's true that production has stopped because suppliers are scared of not being paid, then those sections of the press who seem to have really had it in for Rover finally seem to have got their way.


I think that Rover have been hurt very badly by the Britsh disease of assuming that anything british is rubbish - In Italy when Fiat was in trouble the public carried on buying their cars - the same with Renault in France. But in England there's a sneering section of the media that attacks anything British and this becomes the nosedive that we're seeing now - unfortunately I think that, although the name will be saved, Longbridge will be a giant Barrat housing development in 5 years time.

oh come on the British motor industry hadnt built a decent mass volume car since the decline of British leyland! Patriotic duties is what the British motor industry has always muddled through on! Now the public is tired and in this intense global market, where national identity of products is blurred, probably doesnt care. This is now a world of huge volume sales, world markets and conglomerations. The worry that we should have is if creativity and technology is stifled. We should be investing in research and not trying to hold up a dying company

I think the company could be turned around if only they could secure funding to develop new models. I saw a concept for the replacement of the Rover 25 and I thought it was far more appealing than fords incredibly dull new focus.

Just look at the huge success of other British motoring brands that were once making a loss, Land Rover, Aston Martin, Jaguar and mini to name a few, until they were bought by ford or in the case of the mini BMW.

At the very least I am confident we haven't seen the last from MG.

I agree Mayhem - the MG marque is much too powerful to be lost like this. The question is: do the Chinese need to be in Europe more than Rover needs the money?

oh come on the British motor industry hadnt built a decent mass volume car since the decline of British leyland! Patriotic duties is what the British motor industry has always muddled through on! Now the public is tired and in this intense global market, where national identity of products is blurred, probably doesnt care. This is now a world of huge volume sales, world markets and conglomerations. The worry that we should have is if creativity and technology is stifled. We should be investing in research and not trying to hold up a dying company

As others have said, despite the "global" market, in other countries people do care. And as for British Leyland producing "decent" mass volume cars... their alleged "decent" cars are an albatross that hangs around Rover's neck - even now, the press just can't seem to help but mention the Allegro when talking about Longbridge!

I was at the Rover factory a few months ago as the carparks were being used for the National Xcountry. Very impressive i thought seemed absolutely massive.

However I dont think the Rover brand will continue. However i do feel that MG will and i dont mean the rovers with the MG name on them. The convertable sportscar, which i feel on its own would do well.

As others have said, despite the "global" market, in other countries people do care. And as for British Leyland producing "decent" mass volume cars... their alleged "decent" cars are an albatross that hangs around Rover's neck - even now, the press just can't seem to help but mention the Allegro when talking about Longbridge!

that's because we are a more mature market, we`ve been there and done the patriotic stint. I was inferring that British Leyland cocked it all up big time in fact British shipbuilding, the aircraft industry and car industries all capitulated spectacularly all in the face of increased competition and dwindling assured (protected) markets. We should be looking at the next evolution of transport as lets face it the car as it is now is not living up to its social and environmental duties! This will mean more cross-national partnerships and even more erosion of national identity of products

one thing that I think has been a mistake in this painful decline, particularly in terms of the EU, was allowing cheaper goods to be imported into the EU from countries where there has been litttle or no social or environmental impact added to the cost of their production. This should have been dealt with much more strongly and across the board. This could have had a number of benefits; the playing field would have been much more level providing for a softer and less dramatic decline in the already indsutrialised world and ...ideally... the added 'tax' injected directly back into infrastructure of the then emerging industrialising nations... oh well it didnt happen and its probably too late in the day to try

Just been reading up on this, shocking although not suprising.

Hundreds of small businesses will get ruined over this, thousands (up to 40,000 are involved in some way to longbridges economy) face an uncertain future at best while the Chinese will come in and pick the business up for a song before relocating to China.

I couldn't care for the Rover marque, it's got shoddier and shoddier over the years through a lack of investment, I'm more interested in how people and their communities will be able to recover from this.

Like everything British, people don't want or trust it anymore... Leyland days were a reflection of the wider UK scenario and my god how the press have punished the workers of Longbridge ever since, ironically the best products that have come out of the plant in decades have been since the all British MG Rover amalgamation took form.

I would like to see the plant cut right back, kept mainly British with aid from the Government and an overseas investor and then concentrate on a smaller number of really top quality cars, to continue on the scale that has been of recent years is very unwise as the same problems will recur to the delight of the British press and certain other self-righteous carpers I know.

MG Rover doesn't want people to buy their cars out of patriotism, they want to sell cars to people that are proud to own an MG Rover and the fact that it is British designed and made and has a history that dates back to the very beginnings of automobile manufacture is regardless.

Or of course we could simply give up, redevelop Longbridge into an XL Currys, DFS, Ikea etc and then we can be proud of the fact that the state of Britains industry is not just in decline but now almost nonexistent!

Some history:

http://www.technispec.com/a50/default.htm#begin

http://derela.republika.pl/austin.htm

I think their luck has finally run out.

Good points Betty.

The damage was done before the current ownership came in, for years the leadership and on going development wasn't there. I suppose it was doomed when BMW shafted it.

It's hard to see anyway out but the supply chain and skilled workforce must be worth something to somebody a long the line.

I always feel embarrassed and angry when I see the old works in Coventry - it's now a supermarket, KFC and shite hotel etc. while the area around it is slowly dying. once you put retail crap up there's no way back, the economy is reprofiled and people go into subsistance mode, surviving on the bare minimum like they did 100 years ago.

"Herbert Austin was installed as Manager at Wolseley cars and won international renown, but in the early summer of 1905 he resigned and looked around for somewhere to start on his own company.
After numerous exploratory cycle rides all round Birmingham, he came to Longbridge, seven miles out of the city (then a leafy area). There he found a small derelict printing works, which proved to be just what he wanted. Friends came forward with financial help and the Austin Motor Company was born."

This is even more saddening, ironically it will be exactly 100 years ago that Longbridge was first thought out to produce cars.

This is just appalling. The French and Italians pumped 10 times more into their national brands, and protected them.

Britain has world class automotive engineering and design acumen - there are a huge number of jobs in Oxfordshire built on that (and Forumula 1). Britain has world class marketing and logistical capabilities. We have a flexible labour market, and can make cars more efficiently and profitably for multi-nationals than Belgium or Germany.

We need to find a way of making this work, it is vital for our economy and our nation. This IS an election issue. The future for Longbridge may well be different, well obviously it will be, but I cannot perceive that we cannot harness a) world class automotive design b) world class marketing skill c) efficient and flexible workforce, with a successful car industry. We need to find a way.

I will regard Rover going down as worse than a failure amongst one of the big banks, or Somerset being allowed to join Estonia as a new country under obscure EU regulations we dont know about. It cant happen.

The Chinese can gain an affordable foothold in European design and manufacturing.

I am going to hold my breath and be optimistic on this one. I know the company is too small, has run out of money, and has an ageing product range, but I have faith. They should launch a "Rover Bond" the way Government's do in wartime - I would happily invest £100 in a "Rover - Great British/Chinese Cars Built in Birmingham and Shanghai" bond.

Incidentally, if people in Birmingham don't SCREAM AND SHOUT AND SULK AND POUT AND CRY AND DEMONSTRATE over the future of Rover at this time, then that would be a pity. Now, with a general election taking place, would seem a very good time for Birmingham people to make the future of Rover a big national issue. Demand support from all the parties.

I think the company could be turned around if only they could secure funding to develop new models. I saw a concept for the replacement of the Rover 25 and I thought it was far more appealing than fords incredibly dull new focus.

Just look at the huge success of other British motoring brands that were once making a loss, Land Rover, Aston Martin, Jaguar and mini to name a few, until they were bought by ford or in the case of the mini BMW.

At the very least I am confident we haven't seen the last from MG.
I really can't see this as the end either. Yesterday we had a former chairman and chief executive of MG Rover's predecessor Austin Rover, who although described the carmaker's situation as "very serious indeed" insisted the company did still has assets which others would want, these being:

- the K-series engine - which is one of the best in the world
- the ability to design and manufacture suspension units
- the MG brand and heritage
- and a dedicated Longbridge workforce

Admittedly there has been a lack of investment in new models from before the Pheonix consortium took control which has not been helped by BMW's asset stipping of the Mini and Land Rover marques but I just can't see all this going down. The company is owned by some very successful businessmen and I honestly believe there is a certain ammount of brinkmanship by both MG Rover and SAIC going on - funny how this has all come to a head when a general election date is announced. and looks even more unlikely when when you see MG Rover products suprisingly coming out top in reliability and customer satisfaction surveys.

http://icbirmingham.icnetwork.co.uk/birminghampost/news/tm_objectid=15364737%26method=full%26siteid=50002-name_page.html

Lets remain optimistic and keep the faith

I will be saddend and angry if Rover is effectively closed down and the factories sold off to China anyway, at a fraction of the current negotiated investment. This country does design and produce some of the best manufactured goods in the world, and it pisses me off when anything made here is joked at or labelled as being inferior. You hear it when a disaster happens abroad and the U.K. media mentions it was probbably the British part that failed.
Rover needs to scale back, keep the best employees, and a smaller modern factory, with the investment from China's SAIC. By the way how many are employed by Mini, who make more cars than Rover.

I have just seen a disturbing news flash saying Rover is in receivership. Rover has to be sustained.

Just on the Ten, Rover is in receivership.

RIP Rover, it's been on the cards for months, even years. The loss will be bad for the West Mids economy but nowhere near as devastating as if it had happened ten years ago.

Good news for Labour I suppose, the last thing people want now is a party that would not spend a penny of taxpayers money to build up a nationally important strategic industry.

Couldn't come at a better time for Rover - political parties have to say if they support its future or not.

Towers and his colleagues will, I hope, be asked to pay back the ridiculous salaries they took out of a business they have seen through to bankruptcy.

This country will not live on taking in its own washing, or in shopping, and we need to draw a line in the sand now. Rover has to be saved and rebuilt as a viable company.

seems like my last post has been the kiss of death. very bad news

Good news for Labour I suppose, the last thing people want now is a party that would not spend a penny of taxpayers money to build up a nationally important strategic industry.

Couldn't come at a better time for Rover - political parties have to say if they support its future or not.

Towers and his colleagues will, I hope, be asked to pay back the ridiculous salaries they took out of a business they have seen through to bankruptcy.

This country will not live on taking in its own washing, or in shopping, and we need to draw a line in the sand now. Rover has to be saved and rebuilt as a viable company.

No, the £100m would be better spent on retraining the workforce than throwing our money away to keep Rover going for a couple of months.

We don't have to have a large manufacturing sector at all. Most of the worlds leading economies are scaling back their manufacturing.

Rover made some good cars it's true, the 75 and the MGs especially but the range was just too oldand they didn't have the investment funds available to bring out new models. The 25 and 45 were hopelessly outdated.

No, the £100m would be better spent on retraining the workforce than throwing our money away to keep Rover going for a couple of months.

We don't have to have a large manufacturing sector at all. Most of the worlds leading economies are scaling back their manufacturing.

Rover made some good cars it's true, the 75 and the MGs especially but the range was just too oldand they didn't have the investment funds available to bring out new models. The 25 and 45 were hopelessly outdated.

Nonsense. We can design, manufacture and market high volume high technology goods, with global collaborators. Dyson does it. Rover can. The Chinese may get a good deal, financially, but we need to invest some taxpayers money in value-adding activities, and personally I don't care if Shanghai citizens (who own the Chinese company involved) get a better deal than some capitalists based in England on this deal. I want the company to be rebuilt as part of a successful entity.

We have enough people with an NVQ in saying "sorry, out of stock", we need to rebuild the craft and technical base of people who can make things. Manufacturing will be a part of our economic future, including mass manufacturing.

Even my dad is depressed at this news and that is a bad sign... trust me!

Fucking hell! Maybe all the Longbridge staff could find work in Tesco or... erm... Landscape Gardening and Cookery programmes are popular at the moment... or... err... the Bullring shoppin, naah... I suggest this is a good time to throw jeremey Clarkeson into Longbridge to evaluate the situation. ;)

MG Rover board have issued a press statement saying that they have appointed Price Waterhouse Cooper accountants to "advise the board on the current position of the company"; MG Rover is not in administration, yet, contrary to the DTI's announcement, earlier.

It is desperately sad for Brum that in 2005 this famous marque would have celebrated its' 100 years @ Longbridge. Anyone who has driven an MG-XR will remember this very stylish and sporty new car as representing the new breed of MG.

Almost five years ago to the day,Alan JOhnson MP made a speech entitled "The Future of the Motor Car Industry". http://www.dti.gov.uk/ministers/archived/johnson110400.html
"The Government will do what it can to help industry tackle these challenges as part of our determination to ensure that there will continue to be a thriving car industry in the United Kingdom. "

I only hoped then he meant a BRITISH car industry..

Nonsense. We can design, manufacture and market high volume high technology goods, with global collaborators. Dyson does it. Rover can. The Chinese may get a good deal, financially, but we need to invest some taxpayers money in value-adding activities, and personally I don't care if Shanghai citizens (who own the Chinese company involved) get a better deal than some capitalists based in England on this deal. I want the company to be rebuilt as part of a successful entity.

We have enough people with an NVQ in saying "sorry, out of stock", we need to rebuild the craft and technical base of people who can make things. Manufacturing will be a part of our economic future, including mass manufacturing.

I remember people saying very similar things to you during the miner's strike, "how can we go on destroying our industry", "we must draw a line now", "the government needs to spend money saving these jobs or there will be no jobs left". Twenty years later there is no mining industry to speak of in the UK and we are a healthier and more prosperous nation.

It's not as if MG Rover is a very important manufacturer anyway, they only make 3% of all cars built in the UK. We have a successful car industry why spend good money propping up the unsuccessful part?

"The Government will do what it can to help industry tackle these challenges as part of our determination to ensure that there will continue to be a thriving car industry in the United Kingdom. "

I only hoped then he meant a BRITISH car industry..

95% of the benefits of having a car industry stem from the jobs (including at suppliers) and tax revenue it provides. For this it doesn't matter who owns it.

And anyway, if you have a pension fund it will probably invest in US, European and Japanese stocks so a portion of these 'foreign' companies will be owned by British individuals and institutions anyway.

It's a total waste of money trying to keep an industry "British" just to bolster national pride.

On the subject of suppliers; this is from the BBC:

from
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4423181.stm


Rover suppliers offered £40m aid

A £40m support package has been put in place for firms that supply MG Rover, the UK trade secretary has said.

The announcement was made as MG Rover's 6,000 workers wait to find out if the stricken UK car maker can survive.

The firm called in advisers on Thursday amid reports it was on the verge of collapse after talks with a possible Chinese investor broke down.

With parts suppliers pulling credit and production stopped, industry analysts say its demise may be inevitable.

"I think it's a given that there will be some form of insolvency proceedings," Ian Gould, corporate recovery specialist at PKN told the BBC.

Trade and Industry Secretary Patricia Hewitt is due at Rover's plant in Birmingham on Friday morning.

She told the BBC that the government had made the £40m support package available to Rover's suppliers in an effort to help them "find new business and secure their future".

She also pledged to do "absolutely everything I can" to help Rover's workers and other jobs in the area reliant on the company's business.

The fate of the firm, supported by successive governments, looks likely to become an election issue, say correspondents.

Premature?

Ms Hewitt was the first on Thursday evening to suggest the firm had called in administrators or receivers.

Union leaders said they had been told the same thing by Rover's management.

But late on Thursday night, MG Rover told the BBC's business editor Jeff Randall that it was not in administration and that Ms Hewitt's statement had been premature.

It said it had simply invited accountants PricewaterhouseCooper to advise on its position.

The government has been in intensive talks with both Rover and potential investor Shanghai Automotive Industry Corp to try to secure the firm's future.

A bridging loan was on offer, but only for a year and a limited sum - whereas Shanghai Automotive would complete the rescue only if Rover's solvency was guaranteed for two years.

Early on Friday John Towers, the chairman of Phoenix Venture Holdings - the consortium that bought MG Rover from BMW for £10 in 2000 - left Shanghai after the talks broke down, to return to London.

Production halt

The day before, Rover had had to cease production as the supply of parts dried up.

"Our credit terms have been taken away from us since the press (coverage) on Tuesday," said Peter Beale, Phoenix's deputy chairman.

"The implications are devastating. We cannot survive this."

The company's apparently impending doom led to calls for support for its workforce.

"Yet again I'm having to write an obituary for another stalwart of the British engineering and manufacturing industry," said Tony Murphy, Amicus national officer for the automotive industry.

"Longbridge and the whole of the West Midlands are becoming ghost towns."

A buyer will probably be found for MG who will carry on as a niche sports car manufacturer owned by one of the big groups but the Rover brand is probably dead.

Rover's been in turmoil for years - when BMW sold them off to Phoenix, the Rover 25 was the best selling car of that month (sympathy buying I suppose)

My friend bought a used Rover 25 yesterday and its a nice car, except for the ghastly indicator stalk that must be from a mini metro. But compared to a focus, astra, fiesta or corsa - its behind the times big style.

Its a shame because their cars remain good looking, even 10 years into their life.

I just hope the MG part can be saved, i'm pretty sure this was what has been propping the dead horse up lately...

I bought a second-hand N reg Rover 414si last month, my first, and it drives like a dream, with a lovely comfortable interior. Apart from the fact I feel I should wear gloves and a hat when driving it, it really is a class car. That's the crunch - Rovers are for middle-class, white collars and not for young flashy go-getters.
The best thing BL / Rover ever did in my lifetime was launching the MiniMetro. I can still remember waiting for the bus on the way to school in 1980, and seeing hundreds upon hundreds of Metros driving down the Bristol Road - didn't know what it was, either an ad campaign or test driving, but they were pretty forward looking cars at the time. Rover lost their way by not launching another small car.

looks like the end of Rover:-(

Do you think that this is what the Chineese actually wanted as they can now buy the bits of the company that they want from the receivers (name, engine plant etc) without having to worry about the staff or closing the factory.........

Where is Advantage West Midlands?

We would be suffering full page "boast" adverts from them if the deal had gone through (paid for by the taxpayer).

Where are they now? Issueing press releases like this:

http://www.advantagewm.co.uk/mg-rover-news-release-8-april-2005.doc

They are shameless in being an arm of DTI in Victoria Street, now effectively trying to shut out hope for Rover. There is not a single word of hope, not a single word about trying to save the company. Nothing, just using DTI monies to temporarily support suppliers. Disgraceful.

Where is the Regional Development Agency for the West Midlands? An agency that would fight to save one of the major employers of its region? It doesn't exist. There is a just a branch office of the DTI with a fondness for placing adverts with the words "world class" in them.

as a former employee , i feel im probably more qualified than most to comment, it is a sad day for brum but the fact is people are not going to buy models that are now effectivly 15 year old designs, mg have done the best they could tarting up the range, and the 75 remains one of the best cars in its class, but with out a new model as planned for last year, the company never had a chance, the deal with the chinese needed to happen 2 years ago really, whos to blame? well bmw really, they made a right cock up when in charge, bumping up the prices to make em more exclusive, stopping the metro with out a replacement, fuddy duddy styling and a bizarre fear of the 75 actually out doing its own models.
i cant help but think, if they'd done what mg did with the range they invested, and with the success of the mini, and new range rover models, and the new rover (bmw 1 series people!) the company would be in a very different situation now!
all i can say is good luck to those that are there now.

as a former employee , i feel im probably more qualified than most to comment, it is a sad day for brum but the fact is people are not going to buy models that are now effectivly 15 year old designs, mg have done the best they could tarting up the range, and the 75 remains one of the best cars in its class, but with out a new model as planned for last year, the company never had a chance, the deal with the chinese needed to happen 2 years ago really, whos to blame? well bmw really, they made a right cock up when in charge, bumping up the prices to make em more exclusive, stopping the metro with out a replacement, fuddy duddy styling and a bizarre fear of the 75 actually out doing its own models.
i cant help but think, if they'd done what mg did with the range they invested, and with the success of the mini, and new range rover models, and the new rover (bmw 1 series people!) the company would be in a very different situation now!
all i can say is good luck to those that are there now.


Well said. I hope that as many of the people affected can find good work some else.


I hadn't thought about the 1 series but looking at the thing, it does have a resemblence to the R75 and doesn't look much like a BMW to me.

If a new medium sized Rover had've appeared you might have expected it to look very like the 1 series.

Very sad. This is the car that might have saved Rover:

http://www.topgear.com/content/news/cars_coming_soon/27/bigImages/img01.gif

^ Its ugly as sin :puke:

It looks rather attractive apart from the front end and Kraut badge, I detest BMW after spending time in Germany they are common as wasps, driven by people that are just as irritating, why is it that every bloke i see drivin a BMW is beefy, wearin a white shirt with an up-turned collar but missing a tie and veers across my side of the road as if in defiance of British rule.

well i m not saying its just a been rebadged a bmw, i m sure it would have looked more, well british than that, but it was in developement as the new rover when i was there, i always saw it as a way of them entering the smaller car market with out discrediting their name, seems they did it anyway. and its not the car that would have saved rover, the mini was, its had great world wide sucsess, is designed by rover designers, and was built for a while at longbridge, until they took it away! any one that says its a problem with the workers is wrong, the first minis the press raved about would have been longbridge built, and lets not forget that its now built by ex rover workers many who travel from brum to do it!
and not forgeting that the new range rover would have also been part of it all, and thats been another great success

I despise BMW and hold them responsible for this sorry state. I know it's business but they got the know how to build 4x4s, the rights to rape the Mini marque and the BMW 100 (incidently developed from 3 series parts). On top of this they destroyed Rover who were seen as a potential threat to BMWs core business as they were taking the brand down market and set thier biggest Japanese rival Honda back a few years in europe. What a bunch of wankers. :skull:

I believe volume building will go but I'm sure car manfacture, albeit dramaticly scaled down, will probably continue with the MG brand. This isn't a good sign though http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4423725.stm

Ditto Foxtrot and EK and Blueboy - BMW are wankers and the people who drive them are too. I wrote a letter to the Mail in 2000 appealing to everybody to buy Rover or British cars, and also left a copy of the Mail in a Dusseldorf train station when I was working on a job out there with the headline saying something like Shafted by BMW at the time. Reading also in the press about how much the locals haven't been buying Rover - West Mids Police for a start. They've bought 3...yes 3 Rovers in the last 5 yrs! What a fucking disgrace!

I despise BMW and hold them responsible for this sorry state. I know it's business but they got the know how to build 4x4s, the rights to rape the Mini marque and the BMW 100 (incidently developed from 3 series parts). On top of this they destroyed Rover who were seen as a potential threat to BMWs core business as they were taking the brand down market and set thier biggest Japanese rival Honda back a few years in europe. What a bunch of wankers. :skull:[/url]

Uniformed hogwash.

The Government sold Rover to BAE after years of no investment. Once BAE took over they forged an alliance with Honda, and as a consequence became wholly reliant oh Honda for design & RD. They closed down Canley (Coventry) and sold off land at Cowley, and did not invest in the factories or design.

In fact, when Rover turned a modest profit, BAE did not put profits back into the firm. This took place when there was a global upturn in sales.

BMW were looking to expand, and wanted outright ownership of Rover. Honda refused to buy the company from BAE (Who were in financial difficulty and selling off non-core business) and would rather have had a large stake in it. So BAE sold to BMW. By now the firm was producing cars that were virtually Hondas.

BMW inherited a company with huge problems - they poured over a billion into upgrading Cowley, Gaydon & Longbridge & designs for new vehicles. However, the lack of investment and currency fluctuations were too much for them.

They were so determined to not shut down Longbridge -despite the fact that they had overcapacity - and keep a promise they made to the UK government that they plugged away with new models & designs, but Longbridge continued to drain on their resources.

I'm sick of seeing BMW blamed for this - Rover wasn't a viable business in 1975, and Bae would rather build Honda vehicles than their own.

BMW may have made some marketing problems, but the crux of the problem was Longbridge. It was inevitable that Longbridge would go. As far back as the 80s Margaret Thatcher was persuaded to keep Rover nationalised - this was because the chap running it (Edwards) knew that the Longbridge plant was unviable and would be closed down.

Uniformed hogwash.

The Government sold Rover to BAE after years of no investment. Once BAE took over they forged an alliance with Honda, and as a consequence became wholly reliant oh Honda for design & RD. They closed down Canley (Coventry) and sold off land at Cowley, and did not invest in the factories or design.

In fact, when Rover turned a modest profit, BAE did not put profits back into the firm. This took place when there was a global upturn in sales.

BMW were looking to expand, and wanted outright ownership of Rover. Honda refused to buy the company from BAE (Who were in financial difficulty and selling off non-core business) and would rather have had a large stake in it. So BAE sold to BMW. By now the firm was producing cars that were virtually Hondas.

BMW inherited a company with huge problems - they poured over a billion into upgrading Cowley, Gaydon & Longbridge & designs for new vehicles. However, the lack of investment and currency fluctuations were too much for them.

They were so determined to not shut down Longbridge -despite the fact that they had overcapacity - and keep a promise they made to the UK government that they plugged away with new models & designs, but Longbridge continued to drain on their resources.

I'm sick of seeing BMW blamed for this - Rover wasn't a viable business in 1975, and Bae would rather build Honda vehicles than their own.

BMW may have made some marketing problems, but the crux of the problem was Longbridge. It was inevitable that Longbridge would go. As far back as the 80s Margaret Thatcher was persuaded to keep Rover nationalised - this was because the chap running it (Edwards) knew that the Longbridge plant was unviable and would be closed down.

Partial bollocks. The bit about BAe is correct, but you credit BMW with too much. They provided the money to develop the R75 and Mini, but ignored the bread and butter mid-size cars (and took the Mini with them). BMW wanted Land Rover's technology, they had no real interest in Rover.

Partial bollocks. The bit about BAe is correct, but you credit BMW with too much. They provided the money to develop the R75 and Mini, but ignored the bread and butter mid-size cars (and took the Mini with them). BMW wanted Land Rover's technology, they had no real interest in Rover.

They didn't "take" the mini with them - they owned it.
What you mean is they didn't _give_ Mini to PVH as part of the disposal deal.
Using language like that somehow implies that BMW stole something - they can't steal something they already own.

There was something Newsnight about a deal that may save the plant - although I fail to see how the brand (Owned by BMW!) can survive this.

It involves the DTI & some American hotshot.

I feel that sometimes you just have to let go, reskill, and move on. It has happened with other sectors of the economy in the mid to recent past, textiles, coal, steel, etc. There is simply no sense in throwing good money after bad.

Sorry.

Interesting that Britian now produces more cars per annum than it has for a long while. Not British owned, but providing work non the less.

Originally Posted by MartinN
Uniformed hogwash.

The Government sold Rover to BAE after years of no investment. Once BAE took over they forged an alliance with Honda, and as a consequence became wholly reliant oh Honda for design & RD. They closed down Canley (Coventry) and sold off land at Cowley, and did not invest in the factories or design.

In fact, when Rover turned a modest profit, BAE did not put profits back into the firm. This took place when there was a global upturn in sales.

BMW were looking to expand, and wanted outright ownership of Rover. Honda refused to buy the company from BAE (Who were in financial difficulty and selling off non-core business) and would rather have had a large stake in it. So BAE sold to BMW. By now the firm was producing cars that were virtually Hondas.

BMW inherited a company with huge problems - they poured over a billion into upgrading Cowley, Gaydon & Longbridge & designs for new vehicles. However, the lack of investment and currency fluctuations were too much for them.

They were so determined to not shut down Longbridge -despite the fact that they had overcapacity - and keep a promise they made to the UK government that they plugged away with new models & designs, but Longbridge continued to drain on their resources.

I'm sick of seeing BMW blamed for this - Rover wasn't a viable business in 1975, and Bae would rather build Honda vehicles than their own.

BMW may have made some marketing problems, but the crux of the problem was Longbridge. It was inevitable that Longbridge would go. As far back as the 80s Margaret Thatcher was persuaded to keep Rover nationalised - this was because the chap running it (Edwards) knew that the Longbridge plant was unviable and would be closed down.
Obviously this is written from an Austin Rover perspective but you may want to check this out this uninformed hogwash. http://www.austin-rover.co.uk/index.htm?whydbbrf.htm

The only good thing I have to say about BMW is that they employ people at Cowley and the Hams Hall engine plant.

And a few hundred Brummies commute to Cowley everyday too.

I feel that sometimes you just have to let go, reskill, and move on. It has happened with other sectors of the economy in the mid to recent past, textiles, coal, steel, etc. There is simply no sense in throwing good money after bad.

Sorry.

Interesting that Britian now produces more cars per annum than it has for a long while. Not British owned, but providing work non the less.

A lot of these industries were reliant on the British Empire for exports - Britain actually stopped India from producing its own cloth just so it could the stuff it made in the Northern mill towns to them.

The Machine tool industry in the UK was good, but the largest firm, Alfred Herbert, was run like a Victorian company, and when Herbert died the company fell apart - despite some excellent NC lathes. Most of these firms failed to break into the US market. Wickman , another leader, failed to invest in new machine design until the 70s.

The motor industry was underproductive and quality and design were variable, usually poor - the government used the motor industry to balance payments. When demand was high, there was never enough capacity, and people could not afford imports due to the duty of them. As soon as Britain joined the EU and dropped the heavy duties on imports, people bought Japanese cars. During the 1970s the government had to join all the British motor firms together and form BL, which was a total disaster. All the profitable bits were spun back out of it, leaving Rover under government control until the 1980s.

The Midlands has unfortunately missed out on the IT boom - despite the so called Coventry & Warwickshire Technology Triangle (Which perhaps collapsed when Marconi floundered). Not that there are any British computer firms left - ICL is now Fujitsu.

Obviously this is written from an Austin Rover perspective but you may want to check this out this uninformed hogwash. http://www.austin-rover.co.uk/index.htm?whydbbrf.htm

The only good thing I have to say about BMW is that they employ people at Cowley and the Hams Hall engine plant.

Totally biased and absolutely no evidence for the theory.

Whoever had taken over Longbridge would have had the same problems, and would have shut it down. BMW wanted Longbridge for volume Mid-Range cars.

They still own the Rover name, ironically.

It'll be interesting (to say the least) to see what the administrators will do if they find SAIC owns the intellectual property rights to the rover 25/75 and the K-series engine. This is a possibility - thanks to the c£60 million deal between SAIC and MG Rover last year. If they do, there's nothing to stop SAIC tooling up to manufacture the vehicles now. PwC dont really know what assets they have left to sell - at least that's what I understand the situation to be.

If we come out of this with a functioning company producing MGs at a scaled back plant we ought to count ourselves lucky.

RIP Rover, lets hope they salvage MG's to be made in Birmingham and do something useful with the rest of the site...not another out of town retail park/cinema/bowling alley and all the other low paid service jobs

What a disaster. In time it will be good to learn how the DTI could have acted more proactively and wisely to intervene and support the company through what should have been a transition rather than closure. I think the workers were let down by incompetent Whitehall civil servants, and their poodles in Advantage West Midlands. Others will want to try to blame the owners, and maybe they do share some of the blame.

It's such a pity, I really hoped that for once the company would be lucky, find a good partner, at the right time, and find a way back as part of a bigger grouping. The whole country seems a bit weaker and smaller without Rover.

What a disaster. In time it will be good to learn how the DTI could have acted more proactively and wisely to intervene and support the company through what should have been a transition rather than closure. I think the workers were let down by incompetent Whitehall civil servants, and their poodles in Advantage West Midlands. Others will want to try to blame the owners, and maybe they do share some of the blame.

It's such a pity, I really hoped that for once the company would be lucky, find a good partner, at the right time, and find a way back as part of a bigger grouping. The whole country seems a bit weaker and smaller without Rover.

How can it be the government's fault? Is it the government's fault that a private business goes bust due to cashflow problems? There was no chance it would find a partner with that amount of debt - it's got virtually no assets left, and huge debts, and virtually no market. There was nothing the DTI could do - you want them to keep pumping 25 million a month into a business that's bust? They've been there before and it didn't help matters much then.

I've been watching the news and becoming increasingly bemused by the attitude we're getting from the Rover workers - they seem to think they're hard done by because they're only getting the standard redundancy payout - why should they be any different to any other worker who's lost their job due due to liquidation? MG Rover's gone bust - there's no money for 30K payouts. it's being handled by the government - that was BMW's offer to get the place off their hands.

Maybe they should have taken it then instead of relying on Phoenix, who never had a decent business plan from day 1. Ford gave payouts when they closed Dagenham - they weren't bankrupt. They had the millions required to close down a business of that size and negiotated with the unions to arrive at a figure that was satisfactory.

They're claiming that "Rover _is_ the West Midlands" - eh? "Rover is a bastion of Britishness"? - Ha!

Surely they must have seen this coming? I've worked in firms that are going down the pan and the signs = usually the fact you're not selling anything - are blatantly obvious! Were they so blinkered by the "Jobs for life" attitude that they failed to realise it?

Ok Martin - let's calm down and think about the poor workers, and of course for the people of Browns Lane. This is a huge blow to Brum and Cov irrespective of whose bloody fault it is.
I saw Have I got News for You tonight and in a sheer twist of fate, it was compered by our nemesis Jeremy Clarkson. I was thinking "just you bloody well dare" - and there it was - a little sneer here and there; some slight feeling for the workers and a photoshopped logo (Viking ship) stating Over with the R removed. And how the London audience guffawed at that little baby!
I don't know how you can take 5000 workers' misfortune and turn it into a laugh-a-minute as a cheap shot on the same night as the company's gone under.
I hope the BBC received lots of calls tonight, and that people like J Clarkson aren't walking down dark alleys in Brum in the future.

They're claiming that "Rover _is_ the West Midlands" - eh? "Rover is a bastion of Britishness"? - Ha!

Surely they must have seen this coming? I've worked in firms that are going down the pan and the signs = usually the fact you're not selling anything - are blatantly obvious! Were they so blinkered by the "Jobs for life" attitude that they failed to realise it?

Martin N, let me answer your points on behalf of the many workers at Longbridge (some of whom have been supporting the BRITISH car industry for decades whether good or bad)

You are a complete tosser with a typical Anti- British self depreciating attitude, you look at the negative side and then polarise it to the extent of revelling in it (especially if Brum is involved)... are you German, I wouldn't be surprised, did BMW build the Mini when it became world famous as a British institution in the Italian Job or when it was worshipped by millions of enthusiasts across the world, hard working Brummies at Longbridge built the Mini... does that hurt your sad little pride? Coventry gave in mate, they rolled over and accepted their fate like subservient pups and now they are stuck with part time retail gimps as oposed to highly skilled engineers, don't knock Brummies for fighting their corner thank you very much. :) Besides you're hardley a true rep for Cov are you...

Just to spell it out...

TWAT!

:)

Martin N, let me answer your points on behalf of the many workers at Longbridge (some of whom have been supporting the BRITISH car industry for decades whether good or bad)

You are a complete tosser with a typical Anti- British self depreciating attitude, you look at the negative side and then polarise it to the extent of revelling in it (especially if Brum is involved)... are you German, I wouldn't be surprised, did BMW build the Mini when it became world famous as a British institution in the Italian Job or when it was worshipped by millions of enthusiasts across the world, hard working Brummies at Longbridge built the Mini... does that hurt your sad little pride? Coventry gave in mate, they rolled over and accepted their fate like subservient pups and now they are stuck with part time retail gimps as oposed to highly skilled engineers, don't knock Brummies for fighting their corner thank you very much. :) Besides you're hardley a true rep for Cov are you...

I disagree with you there. Martin has raised some very valid, albeit unsavoury points about MG Rover. I don't think anyone on this land wants to see thousands of people lose their jobs, but you have to appreciate why this has come to be.

Rover made nice, competitive cars back in 1995 when they launched the new 200 and 400.

Look at Ford as a comparison, they replaced the escort in 1999 (facelifts in 1995 and 1998) with the focus, which has since been replaced itself after having a facelift in 2001.

Renault, Citroen, Fiat, Peugeot, Vauxhall etc have ALL replaced their models.

What has rover done - rebadged the 200/400 in 1999 as 25/45, facelifted the models in 1999 and 2004 and hoped to stay afloat with 10-year old vehicles.

Get real.

The market has proved that Rover simply doesn't cut it in today's marketplace - it either needs to buck its ideas up (highly unlikely), or accept fate (almost definite now).

I don't have a bad word to say about Rover cars, in fact my friend has one and its a nice car. But people are buying other cars for a reason. Rover just isnt offering the goods im afraid.

very definite now.

Hopefully the useful bits can be spun off and turned into something sucessful - the engine, powertrain and suspension bits of the group are still pretty useful, as well as the MG badge. Can production be reconstituted at Longbridge? Unlikely any time soon. It would require big investment in a brace of new models and a turnaround in consumer confidence in the Longbridge product, and all that exists now is reported £400 million financial hole and lots and lots of ugly headlines.

I think the engineering and manufacturing cost is appalling and the human cost atrocious.

Speaking to ex British Leyland workers up in Liverpool though and they have no sympathy for Longbridge workers, they feel the Longbridge union reps and workers shafted them back in the 70's when Hunts Cross was shut.

I can see where they are coming from but that doesn't make the loss of good jobs and incomes (which despite what the propagandists and mancs will say will NEVER be replaced - get ready to work in ASDA and B&Q) to families in the Midlands anything other than a tragedy.

strange

people

BTW: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longbridge

thats an £80 cam fone took that pic with a well scratcjhied lenss, amasink.

It'll be interesting (to say the least) to see what the administrators will do if they find SAIC owns the intellectual property rights to the rover 25/75 and the K-series engine. This is a possibility - thanks to the c£60 million deal between SAIC and MG Rover last year. If they do, there's nothing to stop SAIC tooling up to manufacture the vehicles now. PwC dont really know what assets they have left to sell - at least that's what I understand the situation to be.

If we come out of this with a functioning company producing MGs at a scaled back plant we ought to count ourselves lucky.Only recently heard about this "SAIC owns the intellectual property rights to the rover 25/75 and the K-series engine". If true then no wonder the Chinese werent really interested in investing in the company. They already own a decent chunk, and can use a fraction of the £1billion to buy the rest and move it all to China, or is it more complicated than that. Also if BMW own the Rover name, is there a possobility they could do something, start afresh in a new factory, what with the success they have had, with their current British operations.

The ROVER name is not a brum badge, it's cov i think? Austin founded Longbride with an amazing line of fighter aeroplanes to tanks and cars, where it all went wrong was in the post war years with cheap cov car companies.

Let us not make a mountain out of a mole hill here.

Manchester has completely lost its textile business a long time ago, but the place has reskilled and moved on.

A lot more coal miners' jobs went in the mid eighties, but people have moved on.

I don't want to mention Sheffield and its steel.

Unfortunately, it's the sign of the times. Manufacturing on the vast scale is basically dead in Western Europe, dead as a dodo. Ok, you might still get a few very high tech plants (Longbrige was not that), but apart from that manufacturing is focused on the nich very highly inovative and quality markets. We are moving now into a service to a knowledge based economy, we simply cannot afford to compete with the likes of eastern Europe never mind Asia.

I live in Castellon de la Plana, Spain, which produces around 90% of the ceramic tiles of the third biggest producer (Spain) of ceramic tiles in the world. China however is putting on the pressure, their product is starting to get close to the European standard and some factories in Castellon (there are about 350 of them) are relocating to China, many are now starting to close down production lines because of uncompetiveness.

In the end, this town, that basically has this lone industry for its economic survival, except for grtowing oranges that is, will be in serious trouble in ten years. A bit of a Liverpool situation, or a Sheffield, relying only on one dominat industry, be port or steel.

These forces cannot be stopped. You either poduce a product that people want (and for that it's a cost/quality (quality is also a marketing aspect a "sexyness") ratio that the consumers look at), or you go to the wall.

Look at it this way, in 100 years the asians will be fighting the same battles, as the industry moves to Africa and South America. After that, there is nowhere to go, but everything will be made by robots anyway.

We need to reskill and move forward towards the knowledge based economy, because manufaturing, and maybe even base services, will have no place in Europe in 100 years time. Unless boarders are closed that is.

Only recently heard about this "SAIC owns the intellectual property rights to the rover 25/75 and the K-series engine". If true then no wonder the Chinese werent really interested in investing in the company. They already own a decent chunk, and can use a fraction of the £1billion to buy the rest and move it all to China, or is it more complicated than that. Also if BMW own the Rover name, is there a possobility they could do something, start afresh in a new factory, what with the success they have had, with their current British operations.

Thats one rumour - unconfirmed. Its a complicated situation. The Rover name is owned by BMW and was used by the MG Rover group on licence.

Bit like BMW use "Rolls Royce" on licence, yet build such cars in their own factory to their own new design, when, on the other hand, VW own the old "RR" factory, build the "RR" as it always was, yet have to call their cars a "Bentley".

Bollocks!

Let us not make a mountain out of a mole hill here.

No lets...

Manchester has completely lost its textile business a long time ago, but the place has reskilled and moved on.

A lot more coal miners' jobs went in the mid eighties, but people have moved on.

Yes thats right and didn't we know about it, they litterally caused riots with one man throwing concrete over bridges at passing vehicles, coal mining is not manufacturing, digging holes in ground with machinery is not the same as manufacturing a sports car that can hold ground in world competitions: http://www.mg-rover.org/xpower/

i don't want to mention Sheffield and its steel.

Why, Birmingham and Black Country have been losing all manner of metal works and foundrys for decades but we don't hear about it because the factories themselves are on smaller scales but used to amount to many. (think you need to research your argument).

Unfortunately, it's the sign of the times. Manufacturing on the vast scale is basically dead in Western Europe, dead as a dodo. Ok, you might still get a few very high tech plants (Longbrige was not that)

Have you ever taken a look around Longbridge, not high tech??? so they were making sports cars out of a few old nuts 'n' bolts and some corrugated steel found off one of a factory roof. :laugh:

We need to reskill and move forward towards the knowledge based economy, because manufaturing, and maybe even base services, will have no place in Europe in 100 years time. Unless boarders are closed that is.

Britain needs a base of manufacturing as a country to survive and function, a country cannot live off pen pushers alone, technology works hand in hand with manufacturing these days or did you not know that?

thats globalisation...Carl Marx's theorys seem to be being borne out.

Guess we will all be flipping burgers in 30 years time and speakign Chinese

to me what seems to be the most important thing now is that "IF" there is n hope for long bridge, that things move on as quick as possible. longbridge is one of the largest car plants in europe and has huge potential for development. 6,000 jobs from one factory and an approx 15,000 from the fall out of the thing is huge for one ward to suffer by itself. we need to demolish and get as many new jobs there as quickly...hopefully though not in the form of a shopping centre..... to offer those people who have lost jobs a new hope!

i remember they wanted to make the a38 a technology corridoor. now they have one of the largest derelect plots in the uk to start it off!

Well Marx said that the final stage of capitalism would be when there are simply no more new markets left. So I think we are a little way off the collapse of capitalism yet.

Britain needs a base of manufacturing as a country to survive and function, a country cannot live off pen pushers alone, technology works hand in hand with manufacturing these days or did you not know that?

No it doesn't! You sound like one of those workers that tried to kill the likes of Richard Arkwright and John Kay for even proposing the change from home to factory based work. It was called the industrial revolution.... Why can people like you not accept that a service based going to knowledge based revolution is taking place in the western world? What do you think drives the robots at Longbrige for example, cutting thousands in the headcount off a 100% manual workforce?

Compare manufacturing output 100 years ago and manufacturing output now. What is it as a percentage of GDP/GNP in each case? Compare the same with agriculture, what is that?

Britain is still the fourth richest country in the world.

Of course there is a need for manufacturing, but high quality, high tech products, not mass market medium quality products, we simply cannot compete on that basis.

And there are car factories within the UK that are far more technologically advanced than Longbridge. One of its problems was that it needed massive investment to bring it up to current standards.

A wakeup call for you. The world is changing! :eek2:

Oh, again!

what is it you mean by far more technologically advanced? the rover 75 line is just as advanced as the new range rover line

A wakeup call for you. The world is changing! :eek2:

Oh, again!

Very clever, well done... stop repeating what I've already said, Technology IS working hand in hand already, we need BOTH manufacturing and technology, how the jones do you think robots operate, they need to be manufactured by skilled workers.. dur ¬l@dji0p[iowe and then programmed and operated by skilled machinists with such systems as cnc and cad, if you believe that it is healthy for Britain to exist without manufacturing then you are just argueing to piss me off which is fair enough, otherwise your un-educated in this area, what do you think would happen if majority of our maufacturing was carried out in say... China, and we lost our skilled manufacturers along with all their hundred years of knowledge and research then China fell out with the U.S. and ultimately Britain, or what do you think will happen when the Eastern European countries suddenly wake up one day and think, oh... look, we are producing all Britains "exports" but they are paying us in buttons, fuck that we want to get paid more, so much more that it becomes economically unsound to produce any where other than the UK, not sure if I have explained myself correctly but I think you get the message, of course it is healthy to have trade with other countries import, export but IMO there needs to be a balance for a country to retain a healthy fair economy, because as i say should things ever go tits up in europe or China Britain would not want to catch a cold from the fall out.

i think you imagine all manufacturing in the UK to be ancient dinosaurs sitting around on their jacksides complaining about how hard life is, get real... manufacturing changes with the times, Longbridge was unique in that it was the last major UK originated and owned car plant, now that it has gone what will the Guardian motor journo's write? maybe they can have a dig at the trotter mobile, BTW, you seem to make plenty of assumptions about Longbridge which brings me back to... "Have you ever walked around the site, taken a look at the plant?" or are you going to say "I don't need to, I read about it in a Jeremy Clarkson article"

another TWAT.

All non-Brummies (or people who don't know Longbridge) should hold back what they say on the standards and the technology of the plant, because as EK says, it was a remarkable factory that must have been the largest in the UK, and covered a huge range of functions for the motor industry.

There is a certain percentage of people in this country that will not rest untill they see it's complete demise, I am not one of those people, I admire our forefathers and what they toiled for endlessly, I do not blame Labour government in general rather I blame the insecurities and jelousy of British perps who are destroying their forefathers ingenuity.
Maybe half a century is not long enough for humans to learn of their MASSIVE mistakes. Please??? work together??? Bullshite!!!

For the anti industrial economy bods, how do you explain BMW, Mercedes and VW?

Never mind the German steel works and shipyards. They understand the national importance of retaining heavy industry and in the car sector they've been able to compete in a highly competitive world wide marketplace with high labour costs.

The demise of Rover wasn't purely down to economics, it was greed and self, self, self.

One day this country may require shipbuilders, heavy engineering and mass manufacturing to retain it's independance and sovereignty. Will the Hungarians, Chinese and Indians works their bollocks off for our national interests?

That's what we're throwing away.

In a globalised economy countries are so tied into one another that war becomes unthinkable. That is exactly the motivation for the EU, to link economies so closely that the wars that have ravaged Europe for centuries have come to an end.

Why should my taxes go to support a consistantly failing business?

We are living in a post-industrial society. Germany is going through the same economic problems we did, its successsful manufactuers have already moved production to cheaper parts of the world, Slovakia, China and so on. You cannot buck the market.

i ve heard some crap over the years about how londgbridge was europes most inefficient car plant and all that, but most car plants only assemble the cars, at rover they used to not only do that but make the engines, grind the gears , stitch the seats etc, skills that are nt found at any other plant in the uk, in many ways rover resembles the plight of the city, dogged by its past and unable to shift an out dated reputation by the ignorance of the british public.
its not so much the fault of the current set up as those that went before them, dumping honda was a massive mistake, we could nt make enough of em when we were with them, bmw made terible mistakes, not eplacing the metro, uping the prices and dampning down the sportier end of the range, why? if they'd have done what mg did for the range, and with the mini, and new range rover coming on board, rover would be laughing now! the rover work force is as good as any in the world, you only have to look at the new mini and range rover for that,
at the end of the day i cant blame people for not wanting to buy a car thats effectivly 10- 15 year old design but given a new car things would have been different....

another TWAT.

Well argued, give yourself a pat on the back!

As I suspected - SAIC already owns the intellectual property rights to the 25, 75 and the K series engine. No wonder they pulled out of negotiations - they already had most of what they wanted for £60ish million up front. Why buy trouble?

What a way for the company to go - it had the rug pulled from under it.


Chinese to make Rover flagship cars

Birmingham Post Apr 21 2005

By John Revill Manufacturing Editor


The Rover 75 and 25 could be made in the Far East by the end of the year, it emerged last night.

China's state-owned car maker has approached suppliers in the Midlands as it presses ahead with plans to build models in Shanghai which will carry the Rover badge.

The Birmingham Post has learned that Shanghai Automotive Industry Corporation (SAIC), which last week finally rejected any rescue deal for the Longbridge firm, has already contacted several largecomponents makers which used to supply MG Rover.

A source close to SAIC said: " Exploratory letters have gone out to components companies to test what the pricing structures would be for their parts.

"But it is too early for a decision on making the cars in China."

Local politicians said the latest development would be devastating for the 5,000 Longbridge workers who received their redundancy notices on Monday.

But business leaders said it would provide some consolation for components makers hit by MG Rover's collapse.

Jerry Blackett, policy director at Birmingham Chamber of Commerce and Industry, said: "We wish it was different circumstances, but the fact that first-tier suppliers may be able to sell to SAIC offers some glimmer of hope to those companies hit hard by the MG Rover demise.

"It is not completely clear, but there is talk of production starting as soon as the end of this year."

Mr Blackett added: "It seems the Chinese never really wanted Longbridge. They bought the designs for the Rover 75 and 25, but they didn't want 5,000 Brummies.

"Now they will be able to buy the parts on the cheap because the suppliers have got nowhere else to go. It looks like the Chinese have played a very shrewd game."

The development came as it emerged MG Rover lost £250 million last year compared with a loss of £92.6 million in 2003, the last published accounts. The details were included in information packs sent to would-be buyers of the company's assets.

Originally, about 70 potential bidders had contacted the administrators PricewaterhouseCoopers, but that has now been whittled down to 40. It is understood SAIC, and other companies, have approached PwC about the possibility of buying equipment from the Longbridge production lines.

The scale of MG Rover's losses threw into doubt claims by John Towers, the company's chairman, that production could still be maintained at Longbridge.

He insisted yesterday that a deal with the Chinese "could still come good", adding: "It is not dead."

But Julie Kirkbride, the Conservative parliamentary candidate for the Bromsgrove constituency, which includes part of the Longbridge factory, said: "That the Rover brand will now be badged and made in China is a very bitter pill for the workers to swallow, especially when they took such pride in the cars being manufactured in the Midlands."

Ms Kirkbride blamed the directors of MG Rover, who sold the intellectual property rights for the Rover 75, 25 and K Series engine to SAIC for £67 million last year.

The Rover name, which is owned by BMW and was licensed to the company, was sub licensed to SAIC under the same agreement.

She said: "Once the Chinese had been sold the intellectual property rights to the cars, the directors of MG Rover gave away their principal bargaining chip."

It would seem that SAIC has run rings around the MG Rover board. And people were complaining about asset strippers when BMW sold the company...

This is asset stripping writ large - MG Rover has nothing left to its name but the badge and a large debt.

I heard that BMW retained the trademark rights to the name.

An ominous pattern is emerging here....China wants to not only rule the world, but will be choking her to death in the next 100 yrs or so.

I heard that BMW retained the trademark rights to the name.

That would be the Rover name - yes - but as part of the deal last year, BMW now licence the name to SAIC. MG is still owned by Phoenix.

They didn't sell the IPR to the MG as well? They are in full ownership of it?

i ve heard some crap over the years about how londgbridge was europes most inefficient car plant and all that, but most car plants only assemble the cars, at rover they used to not only do that but make the engines, grind the gears , stitch the seats etc, skills that are nt found at any other plant in the uk, in many ways rover resembles the plight of the city, dogged by its past and unable to shift an out dated reputation by the ignorance of the british public.
its not so much the fault of the current set up as those that went before them, dumping honda was a massive mistake, we could nt make enough of em when we were with them, bmw made terible mistakes, not eplacing the metro, uping the prices and dampning down the sportier end of the range, why? if they'd have done what mg did for the range, and with the mini, and new range rover coming on board, rover would be laughing now! the rover work force is as good as any in the world, you only have to look at the new mini and range rover for that,
at the end of the day i cant blame people for not wanting to buy a car thats effectivly 10- 15 year old design but given a new car things would have been different....


One of the most sensible views I've seen on this is a very long time. It makes you wonder why BMW did several things:

1. Only make the MG F with tiny little engines (maybe so it didn't compete with the BMW Z3?)
2. As you said "damp down the sportiness", imagine if they'd made a 800 or 75 with the BMW 3 series 3.0 litre engine :)
3. Drag their feet over replacing the Mini.
4. Make the cars expensive (i did read the the current 25 ne 200 was supposed to be called the 100 and replace the Metro/100 with the current 45/400 to replace the 200/400 they had at the time - that would explain why those cars were good but far too expensive)
5. Not make any of their cars share technology/platforms with BMWs

etc
etc

Rover dies the day that BMW took all of the profitable bits (MINI and LandRover) and sold of the rest (they evan wanted to close the whole lot down at one point!).

Figures just out from the UK Competitiveness Index 2005 show that the UK slipped to 17th position globally in 2004 from 9th in 1997. You can see the index at www.regen.net/doc

[QUOTE=Elizabeth Kinoke]
You are a complete tosser with a typical Anti- British self depreciating attitude, you look at the negative side and then polarise it to the extent of revelling in it (especially if Brum is involved)... are you German, I wouldn't be surprised, did BMW build the Mini when it became world famous as a British institution in the Italian Job or when it was worshipped by millions of enthusiasts across the world, hard working Brummies at Longbridge built the Mini... does that hurt your sad little pride? Coventry gave in mate, they rolled over and accepted their fate like subservient pups and now they are stuck with part time retail gimps as oposed to highly skilled engineers, don't knock Brummies for fighting their corner thank you very much. :) Besides you're hardley a true rep for Cov are you...[/QUOTE

As a matter of fact, I work for a supplier Automotive industry and the company I work for has lost out due to Rover.

As for your comment about Coventry rolling over. What do you mean by that? The city had no say in private businesses closing down (And it wasn't just the car industry that experienced the same problems - look at Machine tool firms.) and Coventry's car industry was large, but relatively weak in that it was only assembly. Component manufacturers were mainly in Brum, which meant the Coventry factories were more likely to be closed down first. Rover in Coventry closed down in 1996.

Despite the claptrap we hear on the TV, most car jobs aren't skilled - they're overpaid assembly line jobs (Overpaid due to the union action in the 1970s). Browns Lane was purely assembly apart from the HQ function & wood workshop & I believe London Taxis is mainly assembly with engines & chassis imported from elsewhere. Similarly, Massey Ferguson, which closed last year.

AS for jobs: Coventry is home to Jaguar's Engineering & Design centre, which employs exclusively skilled engineers.

As for the Mini - it's still designed & built in Britain. So it the Jaguar. These are great brands and hopefully will have a great future - although it takes foreign investment & ownership to do it

All that Rover's done in the last 5 years is soak up huge amounts of money and what have we got to show for it now? Huge pension for the Phoenix 4, 6000 workers out of a job, and Chinese firm laughing its socks off.

Your accusations of anti-Britishness are almost laughable. Is that the best you can manage? Haw hw.

There is a certain percentage of people in this country that will not rest untill they see it's complete demise, I am not one of those people, I admire our forefathers and what they toiled for endlessly, I do not blame Labour government in general rather I blame the insecurities and jelousy of British perps who are destroying their forefathers ingenuity.
Maybe half a century is not long enough for humans to learn of their MASSIVE mistakes. Please??? work together??? Bullshite!!!

Oh don't be so pathetic. Go and read up on the British car industry.

The ROVER name is not a brum badge, it's cov i think? Austin founded Longbride with an amazing line of fighter aeroplanes to tanks and cars, where it all went wrong was in the post war years with cheap cov car companies.

Well, Rovers were made in Coventry as Bicyles first (Starley), then as cars. During WWII the Rover works were moved to Solihull (Where Landrover is now, I believe.)

No, it didn't all go wrong with "cheap cov companies". I suggest you educate yourself. There are plenty of books available on the decline of the motor industry.

It was a combination of things - government intervention, poorly designed plants (When compared to Ford in Dagenham, which was the largest in the UK) that were dispersed around the country. Companies merged and production was fragmented at different plants.

The post war years were actually very good for the British car industry - it did well on exports, but never managed to crack the USA.

It would seem that SAIC has run rings around the MG Rover board. And people were complaining about asset strippers when BMW sold the company...

This is asset stripping writ large - MG Rover has nothing left to its name but the badge and a large debt.

GM did the same to Daewoo.

Oh don't be so pathetic. Go and read up on the British car industry.

First Kindly refer to my first post top of this page, thank you.

Why did Jaguar move it's Coventry production to Birmingham Martin? Every post I have EVER read from you has been in some way derogatory to the people of Birmingham, you come across as an inferior snail like creep appearing every time there is bad news to revell in it and I am bored of reading your anal facts and figures, get educated, get real and then get a life, Longbridge is over, the British MANUFACTURE of cars is over and it's a tragic shame, if do not realise the seriousness of this then I give up, I really do, I am just thankfull that from my experiences your sad little bias nature is in a minority and sits along side the worthless snides like EB. Trash.

guess where the money for rovers intellectual rights went. did it
A - go back into rover
B - go to phoenix
the correct answer is B. the phoenix four have achieved what they set out to do. the value of rover is much greater than its current liabilities, it may be losing money but it has had little debt because of the loan made to it by the phoenix four. that loan is interest free money bmw had given them which they then reloaned rover at a commercial rate. the end result is the profitable bits of rover will be sold off, the crap bits shut down and phoenix should come out tens of millions more ahead.
why did rover fail? a hugely greedy bunch of venture capitalists got hold of a badly managed car maker and deliberately ran it into the ground. the chinese simply helped them.
the phoenix four even claimed to have offered £50 million of their own money, but then of course said they didnt have the time to get their hands on the money, sort of a way to try and get out of being blamed for it but it doesnt work. just see towers being interviewed on the tv and asked about money shows you what a totally immoral man this is.

Although they have managed to squeeze a few more years out of Longbridge with limited success I do now wonder if the Pheonix 4 decided that the plant would inevitably decline further and they simply acted in their own interests, as you say Gothic... Immoral.

whats even worse is that the govt is then helping them avoid liabilities by giving them money towards a redundancy settlement. why should we pay for this whilst four people have made tens of millions each at the very least.

from the birmingham post


TVR tsar may be in line for MG deal

Apr 28 2005

By John Revill, Manufacturing Editor


The Russian billionaire who bought British sports carmaker TVR is considering a bid for parts of MG Rover.

Nikolai Smolensky has already visited the Longbridge factory to inspect the production facilities for the MGF two-seater sports car.

The oligarch, who bought the Blackpool-based TVR last July, is one of the 60 interested parties who have so far come forward.

Alchemy Partners, who were rebuffed in a bid to buy MG Rover in 2000, are also thought to be looking to revive their plan to run the company as a niche sports car manufacturer.

Other parties interested in bits of the business include Iranian state carmaker Khodro, and Rover's former partner Honda. But last night TVR remained tightlipped about a possible bid.

A spokesman said: "We wish the employees of MG Rover the very best and hope someone rescues it. We are only a small company with 400 workers. To my knowledge there has been no interest from us."

Rob Hunt, joint administrator, said there had been a lot of interest in the assets of MG Rover. "Around 300 people have been in touch with us asking for information about MG Rover, and about 60 of those are interested in buying parts of the company and running them as businesses," he said. "TVR are the type of people I would expect to see."

Meanwhile Chancellor Gordon Brown visited the Midlands yesterday to see efforts being made to provide financial help and employment support to workers and apprentices affected by redundancies at Longbridge.

Visiting North East Worcestershire College in Redditch he said: "We will continue to do everything we can to help the staff, families and the suppliers affected by the collapse of Rover, including the young apprentices."

With 3 potential bidders on board, PwC may yet achieve what was seen by many as an impossible task to get MGRover car production back in Birmingham. Fingers crossed for all that the 'phoenix may rise from the flames' (again!) without the help this time from 'the 4' .

cars are now being manufactured at Longbridge again, albeit only assembly but it is something that will hopefully expand, if only this new college could go somewhere here? that would be ace.

cars are now being manufactured at Longbridge again, albeit only assembly but it is something that will hopefully expand, if only this new college could go somewhere here? that would be ace.

It's worth assembling vehicles in the UK for tax reasons - I believe if you import a car in a "kit" form, they are excempt from import duty. They can then be assembled quickly in the UK. This is probably why they are doing it, but it's such a small niche market they are aiming for...

I doubt they'll expand on it, as there's no need for another mass motor manufacturer in the UK - it certainly won't have the design and engineering centres that Rover had (Although most of that was at Gaydon and is now part of PAG.). That's all done in China now, although it's a bit of mess with different companies owning different aspects - the designs are owned by someone else - and Ford having the rights to the "Rover" name. (And being unwilling to allow anyone else to use it.)

Ho hum. Good patch of land to redevelop. The former Rover site in Canley now employs as many people as it did when it was a Rover Factory - except now it's a mix of companies and industries rather than all based around a single employer. So it may take a few years, but it sounds like good moves are already being made.

The council are currently welcoming public consultation on the Longbridge Area Action plan. In many ways it might have been better if Nanjing had abandoned the site and not reinvested in Longbridge because their retained facilities divide the site in two and therefore reduce the flexibility of the Action Plan. Specifically it means that the council have to chose between making an employment led (Regional Investment site) regeneration or a town centre mixed use led regeneration as there isn't enough land to do both.

That said the retention of Longbridge will be a good thing if they keep growing the work force there over time. This is what the area action plan says although frankly i doubt they will reach the expected 4,500 jobs by the end of the 15 year period that they believe Nanjing can support. That sounds like pie in the sky when you consider the 250 jobs being created there with the restart of production.

You can see and comment on the Preferred Option by following the link below:

http://www.birmingham.gov.uk/GenerateContent?CONTENT_ITEM_ID=12858&CONTENT_ITEM_TYPE=0&MENU_ID=12232&EXPAND=1636

but they have made really shite cars for decades.... I hope no public money is going into this terrible example of maudlin sentimentality?

I agree they made some real crap models in the late 70's and 80's but the later years they produced much better stock and unfortunately the snobbery certainly remained a thorn in their side, the MG models fared pretty well against other similar priced cars, Longbridge was simply way to big and workers over paid, good to see car manufacture remains in the location where Austin started over a century ago :cheers: hopefully we could see some other small car firms set up. Several small firms would make good sense.

The quality on later Rovers and MGs was top notch and always very comfortable!

Are these new cars going to be called Rover or that Chinese name for them??

^^There is a new name as they did not buy the rights to the Rover name. It will sound very similar but be spelt very differently. It was something Rauwor.

Yeah I remember hearing something like that - Ms. Virdee told me. :yes:

Roewe to be precise....

I agree they made some real crap models in the late 70's and 80's but the later years they produced much better stock and unfortunately the snobbery certainly remained a thorn in their side, the MG models fared pretty well against other similar priced cars, Longbridge was simply way to big and workers over paid, good to see car manufacture remains in the location where Austin started over a century ago :cheers: hopefully we could see some other small car firms set up. Several small firms would make good sense.

Isn't it quite commonly accepted now that if Rover had gone to Alchemy in 2000, instead of to the Phoenix Consortium, there would still be a strong business in place, albeit with half the workforce? I think even Carl Chinn, who was one of the key public figures in the Midlands who was against Alchemy's plans, has agreed that in hindsight he probably backed the wrong people.

As you say, one of Rover's biggest problems was its brand reputation - much like one of Birmingham's biggest problems! For instance, the Rover 75 was European car of the year when it first appeared in 1998 (?), but the brand told against it and its sales did not match what one might expect from having been awarded this recognition. And then Rover tried running as a mass-market manufacturer without the mass-market sales to support this, and the cars got long in the tooth compared to the competition, and then the company ran out of money and.... *kaput*

Yeah I remember hearing something like that - Ms. Virdee told me. :yes:

She's a Mrs now! :(

Roewe to be precise....

Aaah, that's it! My memory failed me...

^^There is a new name as they did not buy the rights to the Rover name. It will sound very similar but be spelt very differently. It was something Rauwor.

It's because Ford had first refusal over the name, and they chose to take it up. They do not want another manufacturer using the Rover brand as it may cause confusion with Landrover - part of PAG.

Isn't it quite commonly accepted now that if Rover had gone to Alchemy in 2000, instead of to the Phoenix Consortium, there would still be a strong business in place, albeit with half the workforce? I think even Carl Chinn, who was one of the key public figures in the Midlands who was against Alchemy's plans, has agreed that in hindsight he probably backed the wrong people.


More like 1/4 of the workforce. Although Alchemy group actually backed out once they saw the company's books.

but they have made really shite cars for decades.... I hope no public money is going into this terrible example of maudlin sentimentality?

Yes, but not the last ones.

You are just spouting the stereotypical crap doused out by the London Press and the pratt on Top Gear.

Rover quality surpassed BMW's own under their ownership. Problem for Rover is that BMW didn't put the PR money into Rover that they do into their own unreliable crap.

I know several unfortunate BMW drivers who have endless reliabilty problems. Funnily enough, those with Rover 75's seem to always have them...

Conclusion: Check your facts before spouting shite.

Yes, but not the last ones.

You are just spouting the stereotypical crap doused out by the London Press and the pratt on Top Gear.

Rover quality surpassed BMW's own under their ownership. Problem for Rover is that BMW didn't put the PR money into Rover that they do into their own unreliable crap.

I know several unfortunate BMW drivers who have endless reliabilty problems. Funnily enough, those with Rover 75's seem to always have them...

Conclusion: Check your facts before spouting shite.

Incidentally the last MG Rover car "The Prat On Top Gear" tested was the MG ZT V8.

Clarkson did his usual thing of taking the piss out of the car, and its prehistoric engine which MG-R had bought from Ford. Also pointing out that all of the development budget had been spent on making it rear wheel drive, and only had "A sprocket set from Halford's and the money from the back of the sofa to spend on restyling."

Then, he drove it. And absolutely loved the way it handled, and praised its looks. Signing of the report, he mentioned that the budget development for the Spitfire was something like £12,000, and compared the MG to that!

Further, the 75 was originally build at Cowley in Oxford, which was kept by BMW and now builds the MINI - A good car. When BMW & Rover split, R75 production was switched to Longbridge. If you consult any used car guide, it will tell you that when buying a 75, to try and get a Longbridge built one, as they are better built than the Cowley built examples.

Rover did not make bad cars. It made old and outdated cars. But, they consistently beat some very big manufacturers in customer satisfaction surveys - even beating Fiat, Renault, Citroen, and Peugeot the year after they went bust in the JDPower customer satisfaction surveys!

The biggest tragedy about the whol thing, is that the replacement for the Rover 45/MG ZS was almost ready for production when they went under. If they'd been able to hold on for a few more weeks, they could have released it, along with the very pretty 75 coupe (like a modern SD-1 crossed with a Bentley) which they were also developing.
http://www.austin-rover.co.uk/images/rover75coupe_06.jpg
http://www.carbodydesign.com/vehicles/rover/2004-11-16-75-coupe/Rover-75-Coupe-1.jpg
75 Coupe prototype, 2004
http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/images/front_picture_library_UK/dir_426/car_photo_213257_5.jpg
http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/images/front_picture_library_UK/dir_426/car_photo_213256_5.jpg
Rover 45/MG ZS replacement - now badged as Roewe 450. Was almost ready for production when Rover went under. Pictures from Auto Express (http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/news/autoexpressnews/205587/roewe_450.html)

Seen this Blah?

http://www.motorauthority.com/news/concept-cars/a-glimpse-at-mg%e2%80%99s-future-models/

I think the 75 is an excellent model and the MG versions even look cool and were selling pretty well. The MGRover story is one of poor management not just in the latter days but for decades. They tried to keep up with big boys and in the process lost sight of their market. They tried too hard to protect too much when they should have realised that the market was going to require them to be a niche player. Marketing was poor, in their darkest hour they built the worlds fastet estate car that I believe broke the 200mph barrier, but did anyone hear about it? New models were much too late in arriving too. I do blame Phoenix because I suspect they did little at the top level to stop things going pear shaped.

Its tempting then to suggest the government should have helped more but as Tony said we don't want public money going this way and nor do we want public money to be seen as a fallback for other poorly managed companies. Perhaps the government should have kept a more watchful eye over the sale process but I guess business is business.

A really sad story, the sale went to the wrong people and the split up of the brand name from its intellectual property is a sad final betrayal. Maybe they'll be reunited again in the future.

the site is something to behold at the moment, it is bizarre, such a mass of land now opened up for development, in all honesty the Rover works had become a real eyesore, I just hope we don't get bland supermarkets and ikeas, I'm sure investment will come or is on the way and to keep car manufacture there is at least something we didn't expect.

Roewe is the SAIC one, who bought the model and possibly the Rover name.

The Brummie cars will be Nanjing and will be MG Rovers :yes:

Roewe is the SAIC one, who bought the model and possibly the Rover name.

The Brummie cars will be Nanjing and will be MG Rovers :yes:

Just MG - They can't use "Rover".

Just MG - They can't use "Rover".

Ford bought the Rover name, to stop anyone else using it, as it owns Land Rover at the moment.

I think that Rover has had such a bad press over the years I am not that bothered about the name going, MG is a good name to promote with owners clubs and enthusiasts across the world.

Ford bought the Rover name, to stop anyone else using it, as it owns Land Rover at the moment.

Yup, as I said earlier, Ford had first refusal on the name, and decided to buy it to avoid confusion in the marketplace.

Quite right all!

Incidentally, just to underline BMW's shafting of Rover, the bulk of their R&D resources and Budget at Longbridge went into the new Mini.

That is a product designed and engineered by Rover at Longbridge. That is what they were capable of. BMW took it with them, and left them with little or no product development on the drawing board.

But it's OK 'cos all the cretins that criticise Rover all drive BMW's.

Nanjing are likely to resurrect the Austin name.

Roewe are already making diecast models of what was the Rover 75! Check them out on eBay: http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/1-18-China-Roewe-750-blue-color-very-rare_W0QQitemZ130091395442QQcategoryZ223QQrdZ1QQssPageNameZWD4VQQcmdZViewItem

Nanjing are likely to resurrect the Austin name.

Does that mean we'll see the return of the likes of the Allegro, Maxi, Metro, Maestro and Montego?? :happy: :happy: :happy:

Does that mean we'll see the return of the likes of the Allegro, Maxi, Metro, Maestro and Montego?? :happy: :happy: :happy:

Square Steering wheels for all!

Quite right all!

Incidentally, just to underline BMW's shafting of Rover, the bulk of their R&D resources and Budget at Longbridge went into the new Mini.

That is a product designed and engineered by Rover at Longbridge. That is what they were capable of. BMW took it with them, and left them with little or no product development on the drawing board.

But it's OK 'cos all the cretins that criticise Rover all drive BMW's.


And the cretins who endlessly blame the Germans are just ignorant - and the sad fact is that BMW still has a car factory in the UK (Along with an engine plant). There was massive overcapacity in the UK car industry, and the global car industry, and it was inevitable that some would close. Rover was a large factory producing vehicles that were not selling and were not even needed in the marketplace. The real "baddies" were the jokers who took it over, shifted bits of it around to line their pockets, and pretended to be keeping it going.

Hm. BMW did shaft Rover, I think. But that isn't what ultimately killed them. Just about every major car manufacturer is struggling against lower sales, and increased costs. Rover was too small to cope, and were the first to fall.

They might not be the last though.

Ultimately those who blame John Towers et al rather miss the overall point. Rover was doomed. They did a bloody good job of maintaining it for 5 years which gave the West Mids economy the time to prepare for it's eventual collapse.
Had Rover gone down in 2000 then there were an estimate 50,000 jobs at risk ion the wider west mids economy. In those 5 years all the suppliers grew up and diversified. Those that didn't died slower reducing the impact on the economy so that when Rover collapsed not only were the impacts much smaller but there was no wide scale impact on the regional economy. Not only that plans for the reuse of the site were already reasonably advanced with the new technology unit... & as we are now seeing with the Area Action plan and proposals from St Mowden and Advantage West Mid for the site.

It would have been a different story had the other proposal gone forward in 2000 to end mass car production there and then