SkyscraperCity Forum banner
Cancel

Your predictions please...

  • Rover's doomed. Will the last person to leave Longbridge please turn out the lights.

    Votes: 17 53.1%

  • The future is bright. In 50 years time we'll be driving around in MG Rover hovercars.

    Votes: 6 18.8%

  • The company will muddle on somehow, always seemingly on the verge of collapse.

    Votes: 9 28.1%
  • Total voters
    32

Is Rover Doomed?

9449 Views 135 Replies 39 Participants Last post by  Engels, 
mk61
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."
Click to expand...
See less See more
Reply
Save
Like
101 - 120 of 136 Posts
gothicform
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.
See less See more
Reply
Save
Like
Elizabeth Kinoke
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.
Reply
Save
Like
gothicform
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.
Reply
Save
Like
mk61
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."
Click to expand...
See less See more
Reply
Save
Like
Forward
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' .
Reply
Save
Like
Elizabeth Kinoke
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.
Reply
Save
Like
R
Elizabeth Kinoke said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
See less See more
Reply
Save
Like
Engels
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/Genera...CONTENT_ITEM_TYPE=0&MENU_ID=12232&EXPAND=1636
See less See more
Reply
Save
Like
Tony Sebo
but they have made really shite cars for decades.... I hope no public money is going into this terrible example of maudlin sentimentality?
Reply
Save
Like
Elizabeth Kinoke
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.
See less See more
Reply
Save
Like
Butterfield
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??
Reply
Save
Like
Erebus555
^^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.
Reply
Save
Like
Butterfield
Yeah I remember hearing something like that - Ms. Virdee told me. :yes:
Reply
Save
Like
M
Roewe to be precise....
Reply
Save
Like
M
Elizabeth Kinoke said:
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.
Click to expand...
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*
See less See more
Reply
Save
Like
Erebus555
Butterfield said:
Yeah I remember hearing something like that - Ms. Virdee told me. :yes:
Click to expand...
She's a Mrs now! :(

matherto said:
Roewe to be precise....
Click to expand...
Aaah, that's it! My memory failed me...
See less See more
Reply
Save
Like
R
Erebus555 said:
^^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.
Click to expand...
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.
See less See more
Reply
Save
Like
R
majabl said:
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.
Click to expand...
More like 1/4 of the workforce. Although Alchemy group actually backed out once they saw the company's books.
See less See more
Reply
Save
Like
fruit&nut
Tony Sebo said:
but they have made really shite cars for decades.... I hope no public money is going into this terrible example of maudlin sentimentality?
Click to expand...
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.
See less See more
Reply
Save
Like
blahblah
fruit&nut said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.


75 Coupe prototype, 2004


Rover 45/MG ZS replacement - now badged as Roewe 450. Was almost ready for production when Rover went under. Pictures from Auto Express
See less See more
4
Reply
Save
Like
101 - 120 of 136 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
SkyscraperCity Forum
A forum community dedicated to skyscrapers, towers, highrises, construction, and city planning enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about structures, styles, reviews, scale, transportation, skylines, architecture, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Explore Our Forums
Infrastruktura drogowa General Photography Inwestycje ukończone DN Archives Obras públicas e Lançamentos imobiliários
Top