While the "ship" sank the Phoenix 4 (5) had taken out £42 million in pay and pensions. OK, the Longbridge workers maybe didn't make the best products but the Phoenix 4 did a good job of asset stripping to line their own pockets over the years. IMO they never had a sustainable business model apart the the one based on their pensions.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8248923.stm

chunts!

Guess a few ex rover employee's would like there home addresses , I know I would

yep chunts

It was their company, and in fairness they were free to do whatever they wanted with it (within the law). And £42m is probably of no consequence in the scale of Rovers problems, probably the difference between being laid of on a tuesday or a wednesday.

It was their company, and in fairness they were free to do whatever they wanted with it (within the law).

I'm don't think that the phrase 'in fairness' is appropriate in that sentence- legally they were able to, yes, but in fairness?

If the government managed to get Fred Goodwin to surrender a slice of the pie, then these chaps should recesive the same coercion.

I'm more interested in why it cost £16 million to create the report..

TBH the 42m is not the worst part. Its their incompetent mismanagment that rankles me. How could they have burnt their way through the BMW dowry that badly?

They were also offered a small car partnership with another manufacturer (Fiat) but never returned the calls for negotiations. Instead they went with that horrid Indian-thing.

Clearly they looked after their own best interests far better than they looked after the best interest of the company.

They were like lottery winners given a business.

Clearly they looked after their own best interests far better than they looked after the best interest of the company.

Just like every other owner/partner/worker over the last 30 years or so. TBH I'm glad Rover is dead and buried. Despite the influences of great companies like BMW and Honda, they still managed to produce complete junk for 30+ years and that's why they died. In a way it's nice to know that at least somebody made something out of them.

Fairness, probably isn't the word, I'm not defending them at all. But presuming the Pheonix 4 and their 5th executive shared the £42m, over 5 years, then a year of any of their takings would have kept the doors open at Longbridge for 2 days.

You can make a big number like £42m if you add together 5 peoples incomes, over 5 years, and maybe forget about tax and other deductions, and add their predicted accumulated pensions, and then…. and then…

16 Million to produce a report? I would have done it for half that. Losers.

How much public money was pumped into BL/Rover? I thought it was mad to even contemplate saving the company. Phoenix did us a service in the end. If it had limped onto this year it would have received shitloads in cash. Their incompetence saved the taxpayer.

hmm. easy to forget the costs of income support and all the direct and indirect results of mass unemployment, such as health, requirements for housing etc. etc.
is it a bad thing rover died? not really. it's just the fallout of our capitalist system, and not good, bad or indifferent. just the way the system works. rover's purpose, like any business, was to make money. they were pretty bad at that for a very, very long time, under various names. sooner or later it had to come to an end.
like mining. cause mass unemployment in an area, those who can, will move elsewhere and find other work, those who can't, won't, and will suffer as a result. it's a shame, but that's life.

OK, the Longbridge workers maybe didn't make the best products

What's that got to do with it ?

In the last year I've worked on £250k houses and I've worked on £750k houses, but my wages remained the same. My remuneration was completely unaffected by either how good or desirable the product was or, by how much profit the house builders made.

Do you believe it should have been ?

….. I'm liking the idea btw.

work on enough houses that are 5hit for long enough and your income will be affected though…

No not at all Del. All my working life I've worked on houses which included ones that were not much more than badly designed rabbit hutches. My wages were unaffected by those houses and paradoxically, they undoubtedly returned the greatest profits for the house builders.

TBH I'm glad Rover is dead and buried.

MG is back

http://www.mgmotor.co.uk/

Del, if Phoenix ate its way through 100's of millions how much would we be facing today considering ontop of their thirst for money there would be a natural dip in car sales globally?

Mandelson would have stepped in I bet and we'd have become a major shareholder in Rover. Then, there is no way we'd allow it to close. Pumping out years of middling motors.

You can make a big number like £42m if you add together 5 peoples incomes, over 5 years, and maybe forget about tax and other deductions, and add their predicted accumulated pensions, and then…. and then..

OK pick 5 other workers at the same company and do this then please.
Pick the 5 cleaners at the same factory and let me know what you total

I am going to speculate that the difference is at least 41 million over the same 5 year period

Mandelson would have stepped in I bet and we'd have become a major shareholder in Rover. Then, there is no way we'd allow it to close. Pumping out years of middling motors.

Very much doubt it, the way Corus, Jaguar, the building industry, etc have been treated. Banks get money, f*** every other bit of the economy.

Thatcher sold Rover to BA with a 10 year owner ship clause, the day that was up BA sold Rover to BMW. Thats where the mistake was made. BMW just wanted to strip the rover for the technology they had developed by themselves and with Honda. BMW never had the ability to make rover work, as history as shown.
Honda were left out in the cold and were never offered a chance to buy in. Over the years Honda had been pleased with their Rover partership and had got a lot from it. They have always said since that BMW deal they would have liked the chance to buy in.
I think that since the BMW deal the clock was ticking down to Longbridge closing.

mrmo GM was offered a £500m loan from the Government by Mandelson on proviso that GM could 'guarantee' Vauxhalls survival.

JagLandrover was also offered a loan on proviso that the Government had a position and voting rights on the board. Tata refused this condition. Silly really- why would we lend them money without any strings attached?! Did Tata think money is a gift?

They could've set up a really good bike company for a fraction of the price of a really sh1t car company.

IMO they had loads of opportunities to reshape Rover/MG/Mini/Land Rover etc. over the years but never had the balls to do it. They kept trying to be a mass market car maker when everything said they couldn't stand on their own.

When the Phoenix 4 got their hands on it there was another proposal to scale back production and be more of a niche car maker – but this was turned down as it wouldn't provide as many jobs. Turns out that this was probably the better option as it at least attempted to be sustainable.

At first I was impressed that the P4 kept Rover going for so long but then realised they were funding the company by selling off the assets like land – no long term viability and smacked of people having no comprehension about business skills.

Should be interesting to see how the Chinese handle things – from what I've read their set up is very good, just came on stream around the time of the drop in car sales !!!

Just another smear campaign according to our "Government"…

They could've set up a really good bike company for a fraction of the price of a really sh1t car company.

He he ………… good idea !

We can all go around on bicycles, and the chinese can drive around in cars. Rush hour in London in a few years time ….

Everytime I see a Rover crashed I quietly think 'thats another one of the embarrassing feckers off of our roads for good'

JagLandrover was also offered a loan on proviso that the Government had a position and voting rights on the board. Tata refused this condition. Silly really- why would we lend them money without any strings attached?! Did Tata think money is a gift?

and the strings on the bank bailouts are?

Remember that Tata were after Loans, not bailouts. The German government bought the deal for GM by offering bigger better loans than MAndleson was wiling to offer.

To be honest it is all irrelevant the UK is screwed by incompetence going back 30-40 years. Management at all levels that hasn't got a clue.

Funnily the British press like to poke fun at Berlisconi. However at least hes a self-made billionaire and not a crumpled up MP. I'd rather have a dirty shagger leading us than a grey-type..

In the last year I've worked on £250k houses and I've worked on £750k houses, but my wages remained the same. My remuneration was completely unaffected by either how good or desirable the product was or, by how much profit the house builders made.

All my working life I've worked on houses which included ones that were not much more than badly designed rabbit hutches. My wages were unaffected by those houses and paradoxically, they undoubtedly returned the greatest profits for the house builders.

Do workers building Rolls Royces get paid any more than those making Vauxhall Astras? Probably not a great deal of difference. Is one car better than another? Depends how you define it. Given the choice of a free Rolls Royce or free Astra (plus free running costs) I'm sure most people would pick the Rolls however in the real world both cars are addressing a different market segment. The Astra seems to compete well in the affordable small family car market as does the Rolls in the top end prestige segment therefore they are both good desirable cars so in business terms is one better? Just because something is cheap doesn't make it bad or less desirable as long as it can compete with other cheap products- something Rover completely failed at. Also as you pointed out there can be just as much or more profit in selling lots of cheap products rather than a small muber of expensive ones.

I'd rather have a dirty shagger leading us than a grey-type..

I don't think people give a flying who he's ****.

It's more to do with his self serving corruption, and his willingness to change the law to avoid prosecution.

I'm not convinced the chinese can do it, there's only so many facelifts you can give the rover 200/400/whatever the 75 was based on/F.

on the other hand, I'd still buy a well maintianed ZR over a mini.

BMW bought Rover because they wanted access to 4×4 technology (Land Rover were part of the company at the time)and the Mini brand. Once they had what they wanted, they flogged Land Rover to Ford for a tidy profit, kept the Cowley plant for the Mini, and then let the knackered remnants die.

did BMW have a plan for the mini beforehand?

I still dont understand why they didn't use the rover brand as a lower market BMW brand (like Seat/Scoda are to VW/Audi).

Just imagine, an M3 for MG ZS money!

did BMW have a plan for the mini beforehand?

I read that the then chairman of BMW was the nephew of Alec Issigonis (or however you spell it). If you think about it, they've done exactly what you suggest – use Mini as a lower market BMW brand. I guess they chose it because the brand had more appeal to the public than Rover.

In future, the Mini brand won't just be limited to Minis. There are coupes and SUV/4x4s planned under the Mini brand in future. Like Ransos says, Mini is developing into a slightly less upmarket BMW band, but without the aura of crapness that Rover always had surrounding it.

I own a BMW Mini Cooper S and an MG ZT-T. The ZT-T is fantastic to drive and the overall build quality is just as good as the Mini. The 75/ZT range were/are excellent cars it's shame the lower end stuff was not as good.

Having said that by 2004 when Audi/BMW/Ford etc were starting to really refresh their ranges Rover MG seemed to be relying on the same late nineties designs so even if GB had given them the £100 million loan I doubt they would have made it through the current crisis.

You know when I first passed my test I thought the sun shone out of BMW mini's arses. 'Cost-down' is how I'd describe a BMW mini now. At least their customer service dept was spot on though when a small control box failed on my Bosses car (£70 part) and…..£1,000 Labour/VAT. I took up her plight (she was going to pay) and Customer services agreed to drop the £1,000 Labour+VAT charge.

Plus that engine, from a Chrysler Neon. Why couldnt BMW engine/design their own unit?! Tight buggers.

OK, the Longbridge workers maybe didn't make the best products

My MG is 37 years old and still going very well. I'd like you to find a modern car that will survive that long.