Looks like the last british car manufacturer is going to go out of buisness.
What a real shame that our last car maker has had to call in the receivers,and all those jobs will be at stake and the other jobs which rely on rover.
I think this is a disaster for the country.

Now having watched newsnight it looks like the DTR have jumped the gun,saying it has gone into administration when it has not.
Its a real mix up.

I find it hard to be sympathetic because of the poor quality of their cars.

They buy a dirt cheap car from the far east and rebadge it and stick a few thousand on the price. Other car brand in the same category were of a far higher standard for a cheaper price.

"Top Gear" made it their mission to really put down the company and their cars.

I dont know if thats really a good enough reason to give up on our LAST car maker,although I do accept the standard needs to rise in the quality.
Mind you having said that they do seem to have got some quality at last.

3 years ago we had a rover 414 company car - it was the most reliable car we had...I was sad to see it go!!

This country just doesn't appear to be able to compete in the volume car manufacturing business. The radio news tonight said Rover had applied to go into receivership.

Labour: they have done everything possible to help Rover. Rover are just an inept bunch of idiots who ruined this from the start

Yet we have nissan employing lots of workers in the north east and doing well,why is it they can get it right but we dont?

I agree Roy, such a shame. I work for a company supplying Rover and other automotive companies, and the sad fact is that we either beat the Far East in technical terms or we all work for a belly full of rice a day. We should understand thet to beat this aggressive pricing we either tax the ass off cheap imports or we as a nation boycott the goods. Personally I think neither will happen.

Does anyone have other solutions?

Originally posted by robbie
Rover are just an inept bunch of idiots who ruined this from the start

I have little sympathy for Rover.

She is the slut of car companies.

I remember when Rover and Honda had an effective partnership during the 80s and 90s.

When Rover decided to get married, I thought she'd choose the reliable partner she knew for over a decade.

But no!

Enticed by the wealthy German Aritocrats, and making an ill-judged effort to capitalise upon her 'prestige' bloodline, (ho ho) she jumped into bed with the Germans, who swiftly dumped them as soon as they'd got hold of the family jewels - Range Rover.

Afterwards, Rover found herself left on the shelf; having lost her looks, youth and wealth, nobody took a serious interest in her anymore. There was brief interest from some suitors over the past few years, but nothing serious ever came of it.

Several years ago, Rover decided that a brief but risky affair with BMW was decided to be better than a long-term relationship with the Japanese.

And Rover has been paying a heavy price for her promiscuousness ever since.

--------

Can I write them or what :)

Roy, what difference does it make? Rover cars suck :P now what was a shame was Aston Martin and Rolls Royce being taken over and moved...

but hey, 90% of all the formula 1 cars are built and maintained in the UK, that probably brings more revenue than Rover ever did :P

Originally posted by royjames
Yet we have nissan employing lots of workers in the north east and doing well,why is it they can get it right but we dont?

Ey up Roy,

I was on a Lean Manufacturing course a few years ago and the Nissan plant was the shining example. The bloke said that the staff that worked in the ship yards unproductiveley are the same people that produce the most cars per person in Europe. The excuse was thet the unions ran the shipyards, the course leader commented that this if this was the case why was the CEO picking up £250k pa?

My point is, the workforce successfully adapts, can the senior management? Also did the execs at Rover pick up a massive bonus last year?... Oh no feet in the trough again???

Originally posted by alchresearch
I find it hard to be sympathetic because of the poor quality of their cars.

And what Rovers have you actually driven that have been poor quality?, or are you another of these so called British people who would rather buy cheap foreign crap because the press tell you to.

Originally posted by redrobbo
This country just doesn't appear to be able to compete in the volume car manufacturing business. The radio news tonight said Rover had applied to go into receivership.

I think you will find the pathetic Government have jumped the gun by saying the adminstrators have been called in. Note the word adminstrator, this has an entirely different meaning from recievership.

I believe MG-Rover have consulted PWC to assess their financial situation which PWC have confirmed nothing to do with adminstration.

That is a very good point,maybe if more people bought our cars there would not be the situation we have right now.

Originally posted by royjames
Yet we have nissan employing lots of workers in the north east and doing well,why is it they can get it right but we dont?


Because they don't have the British Press slating them on every action they take that is why?

One of the main reason BMW jumped ship is because the British Press were running Rover down left right and centre and they didn't want BMW to be tarred with the same image (this is from an insider from BMW)

OH and pinhead old mate you also make a good case for the work force,maybe the managment have a lot to answer for?

Originally posted by robbie
Labour: they have done everything possible to help Rover. Rover are just an inept bunch of idiots who ruined this from the start


Would you care to elaborate? As I don't see Labour having done f*** all

Rover the last British car manufacturer? What about Reliant, or did I miss an episode again? :confused:

Hi,

It's a shame to see Rover go, But they did make some awful cars over the years. Being part of British Leyland, BL didn't help. The 70s was a big name in the British car industry.

I've had a few BL/Rover cars. They all have been unreliable and/or crap.

Best one was one of these.


http://www.rover.org.nz/images/memberp6.jpg

Nice looker & heavy to drive. It had part leather seats and the battery in the boot. It had a 'clapometer' style speedo and a cigar lighter. I had the 2 litre sc version.

I also had a MG metro. Suspension went on that.

I have had some BL cars as well.

I had an Austin Maxi. What a bumper pile of ****e that was! The only good thing about it was that you could get a lot of stuff in it.

http://auta5p.car.cz/katalog/austin/austin_maxi_01.jpg

I had an Austin Allegro. This had an square steering wheel. Grim.

http://www.austin-rover.co.uk/images/2003jun_01.jpg


Two reasons why foreign cars have do well in the UK, are that they have been more reliable and better built.

Dean of disco

the problem with rover is they are running models which are still the same underlying shape which is now some 9 years old (rover 45) thats too long in the car industry.

Some of the newer car are decent, and their MG counterparts are nice too, but they are too much money for a car that although mught be 'worth it' when compared to other manufacturers just dont have the pedigree.

would you pay £20k for a decent mid-top spec rover 75?

manufacturers make their money on the extras, but the whole car just doesnt retain its value, the badge is the thing what lets it down. i wonder if somebody will take the company over and do a skoda image change on it.

Originally posted by Kristian
Rover the last British car manufacturer? What about Reliant, or did I miss an episode again? :confused:

I'm behind the times too... what about TVR and Morgan?

I was a mechanic in a Seat and Rover dealer, and Rover had some ok cars once, but nothing in the last 15 years has been very decent. Cheaper and more reliable, and people will buy them.

Who makes lotus? I thought they were english.I remember the rover 90 but thats a while ago.

One man,

I agree - the basic design of the cars is too old.

Most manufacturers seem to bring out up-dated models every 4-6 months so if the Rover is 9 years behind it has no chance.

In addition to the quality/reliability issues, Rover does have a reputation of being an 'old man's car'.

I've never likes the 75. Guess I still can't get past the P5 and P6 models.

If it does go under, you have to feel very sorry for those 6,000-plus people who will find themselves without a job.

Originally posted by Kristian
Rover the last British car manufacturer? What about Reliant, or did I miss an episode again? :confused:
Reliant went a few years ago now. However, there are a few left.

TVR
Morgan
Aerial
Marcos
Ginetta (still in Sheffield?)
Noble

Then we have the UK factories owned by foriegn companies
Nissan
Land Rover
Bentley
Rolls Royce
Honda
Ford ?

Then as mentioned, F1 and motorsport in general is an almost entirely UK industry!

PS.. please feel free to add more!

It's ok Tony, I think this thread is just Roy's ploy at trying to prove a point that britian is been invaded when in fact, we still do a lot for the motor industry, its just most of our companies aren't packing enough power to cut it against the big american and Japanese/asian manufacturers... hell we aint even competing with the European one's either.

But hey, we still have the best civil and manufacturing engineers in the world... unless I'm missing some country becoming better than us at that too? :?

Originally posted by Tony
Reliant went a few years ago now. However, there are a few left.

TVR
Morgan
Aerial
Marcos
Ginetta (still in Sheffield?)
Noble

Then we have the UK factories owned by foriegn companies
Nissan
Land Rover
Bentley
Rolls Royce
Honda
Ford ?

Then as mentioned, F1 and motorsport in general is an almost entirely UK industry!

PS.. please feel free to add more!

TVR is Russian, and who gives a **** about Uk factories that are foreign owned, I still won't be buying them.

Originally posted by xafier
It's ok Tony, I think this thread is just Roy's ploy at trying to prove a point that britian is been invaded when in fact,


Well is that is Roys ploy I probably agree with him

What sort of government shows a complete lack of support in its own products and workers and buys buying foreign products?

God help anyone that Votes Labour, they killed manufacturing in the 70's and now they are starting all over again. Before long we will have nothing left but service industries.

Originally posted by dishwasher
In addition to the quality/reliability issues

I would like to know where people get this idea from, as every Rover I have ever driven has been dead reliable and oozed quality.

Originally posted by Skatiechik
TVR is Russian, and who gives a **** about Uk factories that are foreign owned, I still won't be buying them.

Not gonna do much driving then?

When did TVR become Russian? Do they have a Russian owner now? I know that a couple of years ago they were the only car manufacturer whose cars were made entirely in this country.

I don't see why it matters who owns the company, if they employ people here, what's the difference? If we had made good affordable cars in the first place it wouldn't be an issue. It's a shame, because a lot of the best automotive engineers in the world are British.

Originally posted by Skatiechik
I would like to know where people get this idea from, as every Rover I have ever driven has been dead reliable and oozed quality.

From workin on and driving them, even American cars are better... and that's saying something. We produce some of the best cars in the world, but they don't come from Rover.

Originally posted by Skatiechik
I would like to know where people get this idea from, as every Rover I have ever driven has been dead reliable and oozed quality.

http://www.whatcar.co.uk/RoadTest_ReaderReview.asp?DL=0&RT=205512

Just do a search and you'll see. I've driven most Austin Rover cars (I had a relative who worked at a dealers) and owned a Montego, Maestro, Mini and Metro and 216 in the past.

Originally posted by Skatiechik
God help anyone that Votes Labour, they killed manufacturing in the 70's and now they are starting all over again. Before long we will have nothing left but service industries.

And whose fault is that?

Wasn't it Thatcher who kickstarted the decline in British Manufacturing, as she suggested that the future lay in 20th century high valued-added services rather than dirty nineteenth-century manufacturing?

By all means, let's all blame Labour for this :loopy:

If the conservatives hadn't taken the grips Labour in the late 70's we would have a british car industry today.

Originally posted by alchresearch
http://www.whatcar.co.uk/RoadTest_ReaderReview.asp?DL=0&RT=205512

Just do a search and you'll see. I've driven most Austin Rover cars (I had a relative who worked at a dealers) and owned a Montego, Maestro, Mini and Metro and 216 in the past.


A Maestro is the most reliable car I have ever owned, with the R8 (for the unintelligible this is the Rover 200 Mk 2) close second.

Originally posted by Snook
From workin on and driving them, even American cars are better... and that's saying something. We produce some of the best cars in the world, but they don't come from Rover.

That is why most fords in the 80's suffered from severe structural rust, look nice on the outside but you start to drive them and they are death traps.

Originally posted by Skatiechik
That is why most fords in the 80's suffered from severe structural rust, look nice on the outside but you start to drive them and they are death traps.

And look how Ford have improved and reinvented themselves in Europe... what have Rover done?

Also, when did TVR become Russian?

BTW, I'm not against British cars, they would be my first choice if I had the money to buy the good ones.

Originally posted by Snook
And look how Ford have improved and reinvented themselves in Europe... what have Rover done?

I had the pleasure of driving in a brand new Ford Mondeo recently, was the worst pile of ****e that I have ever driven. It was functional I'll give it that, but that is all it was. Its god damn ugly, makes you fall asleep at the wheel, need I go on.

The problem with a lot of the brittish companies as they aren't as innovative as their competitors, most of the Rovers look exactly the same... and the rest of the UK manufacturers are in a much higher money band...

and SkatieChick... you do realise you can copy and paste and only post once instead of 3 times? :? you seem to do it in like every topic...

Originally posted by Skatiechik
I had the pleasure of driving in a brand new Ford Mondeo recently, was the worst pile of ****e that I have ever driven. It was functional I'll give it that, but that is all it was. Its god damn ugly, makes you fall asleep at the wheel, need I go on.

Each to there own I suppose. You could go on and tell me when TVR became Russian, because I missed it and I am honestly interested because I wanted one.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lancashire/3931155.stm

I have had a Rover 75 diesel for over 2 years comfortable very economical and reliable why pay a fortune for a car that will do 150 mph with hard sport suspension low mpg,in a country with a 70 speed limit the german cars i have been in all have very firm uncomfortable seats,
just because its a Volkswagon it does nor guarantee reliability the lady next door had a new clutch in her Polo 5000 miles and 6 months old.
Maybe a little more support for our own industries
I personally always buy British if I can ;)

Originally posted by xafier
and SkatieChick... you do realise you can copy and paste and only post once instead of 3 times? :? you seem to do it in like every topic...

I am quite aware of the abilities of VBCode thankyou, it just so happens it is far more time consuming to highlight quotes from different people in one post than it is to do a separate one.


PS:- By the way it is Skatiechik ;)

Originally posted by hutch
just because its a Volkswagon it does nor guarantee reliability the lady next door had a new clutch in her Polo 5000 miles and 6 months old.

Don't even get me started on Polos, the nightmares I have heard from my work colleague about poor build quality and crap engineering is frightening and he owns a 52 plate.

Originally posted by Snook
Each to there own I suppose. You could go on and tell me when TVR became Russian, because I missed it and I am honestly interested because I wanted one.
It was late last year. The young guy that has bought it immediately secured 400 jobs and has started work on a new factory.

The owner lives in the UK, spends his money in the UK and has his office in the UK. Makes it a UK company to me.

If we want to play the game of where the money has come from, then ISTR that Alchemy used American and Asian money to buy Rover. ;)

Originally posted by Tony
If we want to play the game of where the money has come from, then ISTR that Alchemy used American and Asian money to buy Rover. ;)

Alchemy didn't buy Rover, PVH did.



Originally posted by Tony
IThe owner lives in the UK, spends his money in the UK and has his office in the UK. Makes it a UK company to me.


Not in my eyes he is foreign, therefore it is a foreign company before long we will have nothing British left. What is wrong with people too scared to be proud they are British nowadays.

Originally posted by Skatiechik
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lancashire/3931155.stm

Thank you.

So 'TVR are Russian' isn't quite true. Well, unless Chelsea are Russian too... they just have a Russian owner. Can't see a problem with it, the cars are still made here by British people, isn't that's what's important?

Originally posted by Skatiechik
Not in my eyes he is foreign, therefore it is a foreign company before long we will have nothing British left. What is wrong with people too scared to be proud they are British nowadays.

I'm proud that TVR and Morgan are British, not too proud of Rover. I'm proud that we have some of the most talented designers and engineers in the car industry, and don't care where the money to pay them comes from.

There is a difference between being proud and being jingoistic for the sake of it.

Originally posted by Snook
There is a difference between being proud and being jingoistic for the sake of it.

There is nothing wrong with being Patriotic. I am sure we could call the french jingoistic, as they mostly buy french products, I don't have a problem with that they love there country and will support it.

Well it's no surprise , is it , about the Rover business and the car industry in general ?
We've seen the steel industry shrink , the coal industry practically disappear , the fishing industry get much smaller and ship-building has largely gone for a Burton. Then there's cotton and wool manafacturing and the building industry.
Other people could probably name some more. Some people blame our industrial decline on our high labour costs but how does a country like Germany , for example , with similar labour costs , manage to retain a car industry , then ?
Is it all because the private sector and successive Governments haven't invested in the "unglamorous" industries over the years or is there another reason ? I'd genuinely like to know the answer, as economics has always been a bit baffling to me.
Whatever the reasons might be , it has been sad , these past 30 years, to see a country of proud craftsmen and gritty, dignified workers , gradually turning into a country of "Have a nice day"--ers and "How can I help you?" ---ers and millions packing fish fingers into little packets for a minimum wage.

Apologies Skatiechik, it was PVH.

The point being that the general consensus is that Rover continued to make awful, old fashioned, unreliable, and outdated products that nobody wanted to buy, because they were awful, old fashioned, unreliable, and outdated.

Their latest strokes of genius were...

- The SV -a supremely ugly Halfordsesque coupe that costs twice as much as a TVR but isn't as fast.

- Importing a rubbish car from India, sticking a Rover badge on it and selling it alongside Volkswagens.

- Stuffing a huge American 4.6 litre engine into the ancient Rover 75 only to achieve an arthritic 260hp at 21mpg and CO2 emissions of 314g/km . For comparison the Audi TT does 225hp with 1.8 litres at 29mpg / 314g/km. Even the Porsche 911 only has emissions of 283g/km, yet has 325hp and does 24mpg!!!


With management decisions like that, quite frankly, I expect that the Employees would love a Russian to own them!

Originally posted by Fareast
Some people blame our industrial decline on our high labour costs but how does a country like Germany , for example , with similar labour costs , manage to retain a car industry , then ?
Because they build cars like the Audi TT and the Porsche 911!

There are some good, cogent arguments from various sides on this thread. I certainly feel sorry for the workers. However, I am not sure that the Prime Minister should intervene in this way. What is so special about Rover? The role of the state, in my view, is not to get involved in business matters such as this one.

Perhaps my cyber-pal Pinhead is correct here re the incompetant management, and Abdul makes a fair point [using 'sluttish' imagery!] regarding the equivocal, unfocused strategies and aims of the company.

Ultimately, there was not enough interest in the models Rover were manufacturing. To my knowledge [which is limited regarding the inner workings of the automobile], the consensus in most car magazines is that Rover are usually one of the more reliable makes. Sadly, they are one of the most unfashionable makes too, their designs viewed by many as rather uninspiring. Their 75, which owners often fool themselves into thinking is, "one step down from a Jag", may be reliable, but it is a cheap and vulgar imitation of the real thing. Rover got it wrong. In the harsh world of the global network of production and exchange, one cannot afford to.

Originally posted by timo
. What is so special about Rover? The role of the state, in my view, is not to get involved in business matters such as this one.


Regardless of what I feel about patriotism and MG-Rover in general

The simple fact is a 100 million bridging loan is peanuts to the amount of money 'us' the tax payer will pay in social benefits if the company does go into adminstration and eventually receivership and people lose their jobs.

Skatiechick,
Believe me, I am a very patriotic person [as you may have noticed on the politics threads], but I do not see how Rover symbolises Britishness any more than a thousand other companies facing difficulties. Blair would not intervene for them. Perhaps it is the size of the company? I just have different views about the role of the state.

Your wry comment about how much tax payers will pay in social benefits gave me food for thought. I would be a liar if I didn't admit that you have a good point here. When you put it like that, maybe the bridging loan is chickenfeed in comparison?

Originally posted by Skatiechik
The simple fact is a 100 million bridging loan is peanuts to the amount of money 'us' the tax payer will pay in social benefits if the company does go into adminstration and eventually receivership and people lose their jobs.

I have wondered whether Thatcher thought the same about the coalminers, or did she think the human and financial cost was worth the political results?

The difference for Misters Blair and Brown is that they haven't actively killed off teh car industry, so the Conservatives will not be able to make political capital out of this football.

Indeed, the Blair spin-machine tried to cover his back (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/681123.stm) over 5 years ago by claiming he had no knowledge the break-up of the Rover car group.

Just going back to TVR for a moment, there were 90 job losses about six weeks ago:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lancashire/4299469.stm

Originally posted by Skatiechik
The simple fact is a 100 million bridging loan is peanuts to the amount of money 'us' the tax payer will pay in social benefits if the company does go into adminstration and eventually receivership and people lose their jobs.

But would a loan do the trick, or would it be throwing good money after bad? Would Rover continue with the line of cars they have and just delay the inevitable for a couple more years?

The MGF is a undoubted success, but their small cars are not.

Originally posted by xafier
It's ok Tony, I think this thread is just Roy's ploy at trying to prove a point that britian is been invaded

Thats a bit unfair .

You and I might not agree with Roy's politics but he still has the right to bring up topics which are in the news and talk about them on this forum.

At no point in his posts on this subject has he said anything which is in any way racist or inflamatory so why have a go at the bloke.

In this post the only person who has been inflamatory is you.

Well, as the old saying goes, you can't polish a turd.

The cars are inherently too old underneath, no matter how many fancy bits you put in.

Being patriotic doesnt mean just buying british, especially when you are getting second rate goods. Thats no better then asking to get shafted by the very people you want to support. The pricing does not reflect what you are buying, there so miuch better on the market for similar money.

Its for precisely this reason that have been so lax, there are not enough demands made by the people for what they want, instead happy just to buy crap for remaining patriotic. I see the patriotism didnt go far when the germans bought Rover.

it might be best to just strip rover down, and allow for manufacturing of another brand at the plant.

at the end of the day its a business, and if its not viable then it has to either pull its finger out or get out. asking for a £100m loan of taxpayers money to keep the staff employed is a reasonable request for the sake of the people working there, as their not to blame, but sadly the company just isn't pulling its weight.

i think perhaps a full switich to MG only might be the way forward with money going into R&D making sports cars.

Funny that the K Series is still one of the most technologically advanced engines in the world.

Also I certainly don't think they are second rate goods, you normally get more for your money than you will with any other foreign crap and have better build quality to go with it.

Originally posted by Skatiechik
Funny that the K Series is still one of the most technologically advanced engines in the world.

Also I certainly don't think they are second rate goods, you normally get more for your money than you will with any other foreign crap and have better build quality to go with it.

maybe you should join the Rover board? Nobody is buying... no matter what rover say, not enough sales are going through the books.

They depreciate worse then Skoda, and the product is overpriced for the home market which makes the hit even worse.

They should seek to keep the home market on side, by perhaps not trying to rip them off with cars that deserve classic car status.

Let somebody else take over. We have a british workforce in the nissan factory, yet they are constantly applauded for their consistency and manufacturing processes. Factis the rover plant mechanisms are just dated, and no matter what the pedigree of past cars, right now, thei ain't selling whats coming out the door.

I like the way gordon brown rolled up in a rover to the meeting in brum today tho (with the phoenix group sticker in the back) nice bit of electioneering.

Originally posted by alchresearch
But would a loan do the trick, or would it be throwing good money after bad? Would Rover continue with the line of cars they have and just delay the inevitable for a couple more years?

The MGF is a undoubted success, but their small cars are not.

I think you have it about right. If BMW, the masters of marketing and production couldn't make Rover work with all the money they put in and lost, why should giving the present management a hundred million of taxpayers money make a jot of difference. Unless it's the ultimate election bribe of course ;)

As for the MGF, it's what... 10 years old now? It's slow, it doesn't handle and its not terribly safe in a crash. There have been 3 different MX5's in that same period.

Britain has a healthy and successful car industry - it's just not Rover.

Originally posted by Tony
If BMW, the masters of marketing and production couldn't make Rover work with all the money they put in and lost, why should giving the present management a hundred million of taxpayers money make a jot of difference.

BMW didn't make Rover work because they simply wern't interested in making it work, they were basically after certain techniques to use on their own brand of products, after which they just asset stripped the company!

Take the New Mini for example most design work carried out by Rover, then to have it snatched off them, would be interesting to see if the New Mini would have been as successful if still owned by Rover. Rover actually needed the sales of this car so that money could be reinvested back into developing new models, which sadly didnt happen.

Range Rover products yet again asset stripped and sold off, and how interesting BMW suddenly produces the X5 offroader with techniques nabbed from Range Rover.

So in a nutshell BMW didnt invest in Rover they just asset stripped it and threw the unwanted scraps out. If they had put the investment in then Rover would have had newer models.

The british public should have boycotted BMW products for what they did to Rover. I for one certainly refuse to buy any BMW related product.

Well said Mega_Monty :thumbsup:

Originally posted by hutch
I have had a Rover 75 diesel for over 2 years comfortable very economical and reliable why pay a fortune for a car that will do 150 mph with hard sport suspension low mpg,in a country with a 70 speed limit the german cars i have been in all have very firm uncomfortable seats,
just because its a Volkswagon it does nor guarantee reliability the lady next door had a new clutch in her Polo 5000 miles and 6 months old.
Maybe a little more support for our own industries
I personally always buy British if I can ;)

If you had a Rover 75 you had a German car! The 75 was essentially a front wheel drive BMW 3 series (possibly why it was generally thought of as the best Rover in years - cos it wasn't!) with a retro bodyshell. Then we have the City Rover (an Indian Import with a Rover badge), the 400/45 (a several generation old honda civic). It's a bit of a joke claiming rover as an English manufacturer!

Originally posted by evildrneil
If you had a Rover 75 you had a German car! The 75 was essentially a front wheel drive BMW 3 series (possibly why it was generally thought of as the best Rover in years - cos it wasn't!) with a retro bodyshell. Then we have the City Rover (an Indian Import with a Rover badge), the 400/45 (a several generation old honda civic). It's a bit of a joke claiming rover as an English manufacturer!

see though thats the whole thing, it was never a 3 series with front wheel drive, the whole point of BMW as any enthusiast will tell you is RWD :)

maybe if rover has been clever before the bmw takeover, they would have concentrated more ont the brands with potential, such as the mini, and range rover, and to an extent MG.

it doesnt matter whatthey produce there, if its not a viable business its not going to be in the interests of the workforce. so long as they make SOMETHING at the site, that will help keep the staff employed, rover or not.

Originally posted by 1Man&hisBMW
see though thats the whole thing, it was never a 3 series with front wheel drive, the whole point of BMW as any enthusiast will tell you is RWD :)

The later ones were rear wheel drive also! Still in terms of numbers of bits the 75 was certaily more BMW than Rover. Not that this isn't uncommon in the car market today - do you buy a VW, Skoda, Audi or SEAT - it all depends on how badge conscious you are. However it does make the cries of 'oh woe the last British car manufacturer down the tubes' a bit laughable when most of what they were manufacturing were last generation (at least) copies of foreign cars?

Originally posted by evildrneil
The later ones were rear wheel drive also! Still in terms of numbers of bits the 75 was certaily more BMW than Rover

"It's a BMW in drag"
The Rover 75 was the first product of the BMW/Rover alliance to hit the market, and was a giant step forward from the Rover 800. However, many people believe that the car's chassis is based upon the BMW 3 or 5-Series. This is certainly not the case, and its large transmission tunnel was set-up in order to give the car impressive torsional rigidity. There is no space for a rear differential without significant modification, as MG Rover/Prodrive has found during the development of the ZT V8. The basis of this story lies with the fact that during the months following the BMW takeover, a concept called "Flagship" was developed, as styled by Richard Woolley. It is Woolley himself that explains the situation: "The story originated from the fact that very early on during BMW ownership, we did look at 're-cycling' the then outgoing 5 -Series platform for Flagship. BMW were about to launch the new (current) car, and all the tooling for the old model's underpinnings were theoretically available, sourced from the South African BMW plant. It was an idea that BMW suggested we investigate." This large car (a kind of latter-day P5) would have sat on a modified BMW 5-Series platform, but was cancelled shortly after the styling proposal was completed.

Taken from www.austin-rover.co.uk

Originally posted by evildrneil
If you had a Rover 75 you had a German car! The 75 was essentially a front wheel drive BMW 3 series (possibly why it was generally thought of as the best Rover in years - cos it wasn't!) with a retro bodyshell. Then we have the City Rover (an Indian Import with a Rover badge), the 400/45 (a several generation old honda civic). It's a bit of a joke claiming rover as an English manufacturer!


So we know thr Rover 75 is entirely BRITISH built without re-using old BMW parts. Yes the City-Rover is from TATA, but still it is exactly the same as any run of the mill min-car in the market at the moment.

We also know the new the MINI is British designed, and BMW asset stripped it

However you are severly WRONG when you says the 400/45 is a SEVERAL GENERATION old Honda Civic. The Honda Civic hadn't ever been released (it was nearing production) when Honda and Rover decided to team up again after the sucess of the R8.

Originally posted by Skatiechik
So we know thr Rover 75 is entirely BRITISH built without re-using old BMW parts. Yes the City-Rover is from TATA, but still it is exactly the same as any run of the mill min-car in the market at the moment.

We also know the new the MINI is British designed, and BMW asset stripped it

However you are severly WRONG when you says the 400/45 is a SEVERAL GENERATION old Honda Civic. The Honda Civic hadn't ever been released (it was nearing production) when Honda and Rover decided to team up again after the sucess of the R8.

Well, in actual fact many components used in the car are from germany (bosch manufactured), but assembled in Britain. Some of the components in the car ar share with some BMW models, I think the sat nav unit being one of those.

The city rover from TATA as you say, but its hardly the most inspriring design ever, and made in corroboration with a company that has less than zero respect in the UK.

The british designed Mini may not have been realised unless it had the R&D budget, yet be thankful at least that we still have it manufactured here. It could quite easily have been the case that its manufacture went overseas, but BMW invested £280m in the plant at oxford.

From recent reports, the BMW group left Rover with £400m in the coffers. Even the Alchemy group 5 years ago said the rover side of the business should not be mass producing cars, but concentrating on MG and making better cars, rather than more cars.

They are just delaying the inevitable.

i just hope something can be done for the people working at longbridge, and hope they can produce something at the plant that is viable in the car business.

from what i have read the site owner is already planning to reuse the site for over developments.

Originally posted by pinhead
I agree Roy, such a shame. I work for a company supplying Rover and other automotive companies, and the sad fact is that we either beat the Far East in technical terms or we all work for a belly full of rice a day. We should understand thet to beat this aggressive pricing we either tax the ass off cheap imports or we as a nation boycott the goods. Personally I think neither will happen.

Does anyone have other solutions?

I think there are a number of options. Making the 'same old' and dishing out minor facelifts now and again isnt the way to go. Lets not forget that Germany is a big powerhouse for pumping out parts that go on all cars. Those vehicles made in the far east (say in Japan) do have costs similar to that here in the UK, but there is a main feature which is to blame here, which is universla throughout all the UK....

this is that although the car is made here, its cheaper to buy it abroad and import it back into the country! Why are the people in the UK not allowed to buy at the most competitive price here, which would also show that the company is doing something for the people who are buying their product.

One of the reasons is because they are playing on the 'patriotism' of the british public, but you cant just run a company on that. the export market probably isnt too great when you consider what vehicles there are out there to compete with.

they should move into making the MG brand succesful, make unique sport cars, traditionally british styled for worldwide export. a niche market, but nevertheless probably better then closing it down.

I recommend some of you do some reading on basic economics and international trade
On national ownership, tariffs and ‘buying British’:
In a capitalist market economy, national ownership means very little. What does it matter who owns the shares of any given company? The answer is not much. What reasons are there to resist foreign ownership of UK companies? With the possible exception of the defence sector and even this is questionable, essentially none.
Buy British campaigns are essentially a relic from old style mercantilist thinking and are simply meaningless in today’s global economy. Let’s also not forget that the UK is one of the world’s biggest overseas investors as well as beneficiaries of inward investment (Nissan, Honda, Toyota, Sony, NEC, IBM, Boeing anyone?). The logical conclusion of your arguments is that we return to the protectionism of the 1930s where world trade ground to a halt in the face of rising taxes on imports (tariffs) around the globe. The 1930s, you will recall, ended in WW2. After the war the consensus emerged (one which continues to underpin to this day the organisation of our national, regionally and global economies) that protectionism is a dangerous dead-end and that the only rational way forward is through free trade. Tariffs and protectionism do not work. Looks at the USA’s imposition of taxes on imports of steel two years ago: A few thousand workers in America’s rustbelt cheered as there jobs were temporarily and artificially protected. Great. The result, however, was that all those companies in the US economy using steel (and there are many of those, Ford, GM etc.) suddenly found that their costs went up and that there products became more expensive. Consumers bought their goods elsewhere and for the temporary protection of a few in the steel industry, many US producers suffered.
Fundamentally, tearing down barriers to free trade stimulates economic growth and development. Stand in the way of this process and the result will be disastrous. For evidence look at the experience of the Soviet Union, Cuba, North Korea, Zimbabwe. Embrace and assist this process and the results can be spectacular. For evidence look at the experience of East Asian tiger economies, Ireland, even the UK in the last couple of decades.
Tariffs simply act as an unnecessary drag on the economy. If UK companies can’t compete then they shouldn’t compete. They should move into those areas where they can compete or exit the market allowing capital to flow to those sectors of the economy that are growing. Isn’t it better that today the UK’s main strengths are in teriarty level industries (primary industries being mining and agriculture, secondary being mass manufacturing) such as biotechnology, medicine, software, financial services, law, higher education, than in those industries where the product can be made more cheaply overseas? The question is not how can we compete with cheap imports (we can’t) but how can we maximise our competitive advantages over others? Right now China is booming (as Japan and Korea did previously) and we cannot compete in certain sectors, manufacturing for instance. However, we have the brains to match their brawn. We should be celebrating this.

To complicate ownership further, is a Honda a Japanese car or a UK car when it is produced with 100% locally sourced components (this isn’t the case at the moment but this ‘localisation’ rate as it is known is constantly rising and the stated aim is for 100% localisation of components), in a UK based factory, using UK labour, having been designed in UK based R&D facilities using UK engineers? What about when such a car is exported back to Japan (which some are) - are the Japanese buying a UK or a Japanese product? Isn’t buying a UK produced Honda, from a company that pays UK taxes, pays the wages of thousands of workers, brings in much needed capital and technology etc, a patriotic thing to do? Isn’t this all the more so if your pension fund holds Honda shares?

On Rover:
To the claim that Rover’s collapse is a disaster for the UK economy, nonsense. Rover has gone under because it wasn’t good enough. It wasn’t good enough because it didn’t invest in new designs and technology. It didn’t invest because it didn’t have the money. It didn’t have the money because there was little demand for a product that simply couldn’t compete with alternatives and no-one wanted to invest in it. Rover couldn’t raise money to invest in it because potential investors didn’t like what they saw. Investors, on the other hand, like what they see in other companies (higher value added tertiary level companies) and put there money there. Again, this is simple economic development in a market based economy. Furthermore, when you have a leading auto producer such as BMW flogging it for a tenner because they don’t think they can make a viable go of it, doesn’t that tell you something? If you were an investor, would you have instructed your broker to buy Rover shares? Even if BMW stripped Rover’s assets, why did Rover management sign the deal that let BMW do it? Again, scrappy management does not deserve to survive.
There will be job losses but unemployment at its lowest point for three decades and workers will find other jobs. It is an individual’s responsibility to keep themselves attractive to the job market and not the place of the state to subsidise those who can’t be bothered. On a grander scale, these resources will now be freed up to go and work in more productive sectors of the economy. We shouldn’t bemoan the lost of a company or an industry; we should be looking forward to the development of new ones.

Originally posted by Skatiechik
So we know thr Rover 75 is entirely BRITISH built without re-using old BMW parts.

Not sure this is the case - if there are no BMW bits why is there a BMW Z axle in there or a BMW diesel engine in there? And this from auto express makes interesting reading " It has long been rumoured that the 75/ZT floor and bulkhead design was related to that of the outgoing BMW 5-series. If that was the case, it would explain how MG Rover engineers were able to find space for a propshaft and differential housing under the car."

[/b]Yes the City-Rover is from TATA, but still it is exactly the same as any run of the mill min-car in the market at the moment.[/b]

The City Rover is generaly regarded as a pile of crap, miles behind any current small car - e.g. http://www.uk-shop-index.co.uk/cars/Rover-City.html

[/b]However you are severly WRONG when you says the 400/45 is a SEVERAL GENERATION old Honda Civic. The Honda Civic hadn't ever been released (it was nearing production) when Honda and Rover decided to team up again after the sucess of the R8. [/B]

From the BBC - "The 45 is a vehicle from another era. It was launched as the Rover 400 in 1995, but was actually based on a Honda Civic several years older than that."

Originally posted by evildrneil
From the BBC - "The 45 is a vehicle from another era. It was launched as the Rover 400 in 1995, but was actually based on a Honda Civic several years older than that."

Don't always believe what the BBC tell you (a more factual and truthful site is the one mega_monty pointed people to)...especially when it reports a company is in recievership (when actually it wasn't even in adminstration at the time)

Hewitt should be sacked over this.

Originally posted by evildrneil
Not sure this is the case - if there are no BMW bits why is there a BMW Z axle in there or a BMW diesel engine in there? And this from auto express makes interesting reading " It has long been rumoured that the 75/ZT floor and bulkhead design was related to that of the outgoing BMW 5-series. If that was the case, it would explain how MG Rover engineers were able to find space for a propshaft and differential housing under the car."


I didn't say there were no BMW bits in the 75 :rolleyes: It has a BMW engine in there for a start as you correctly stated. I was merely backing up what mega_monty said that isn't a rework of an old model and it was entirely British designed and that it didn't include old BMW bits such as the chassis.

Again don't believe what Auto Express tell you, most of it is infactual and inaccurate, of course Auto Express would have you believe it was BMW that designed the Mini.
:rolleyes:

Originally posted by Skatiechik
Don't always believe what the BBC tell you (a more factual and truthful site is the one mega_monty pointed people to)...especially when it reports a company is in recievership (when actually it wasn't even in adminstration at the time)

Hewitt should be sacked over this.

OK if you prefer that site:

In the case of the car to replace the Rover R8 400 saloon, as well as the Montego, Rover management (i.e., British Aerospace) made it quite clear that the only way forward was to produce another Honda under licence, but with some styling changes – to reflect its status. After the success that Gordon Sked’s design team made of the Rover 600 exterior – most notably Richard Woolley – it certainly made sense that Rover should perform another Honda redesign for their next medium sized car. Thankfully, the ambition of the engineers and marketing strategists to use the recently launched and highly acclaimed K-series power unit in the new car was reflected by the management as well.

As it was, the deal between Honda and Rover for the new mid-sized car was struck during 1991 and the project, called HHR, was soon underway. As expected, Honda provided the donor car upon which the HHR was to be based: the Civic 5-door, which at the time was already nearing production. To make matters worse, the Civic had itself been derived from the Japan-only Honda Domani saloon. However, the decision to use the Domani-based car was made by Honda, and the news of this choice was passed to the design and engineering teams as a fait acompli before Rover had even signed the collaborative deal.

Because the HHR was to be based on a car that was already considered rather elderly in automotive terms, the feelings of the designers at Canley towards the new car were somewhat downbeat, in marked contrast to their approach to the earlier collaborative projects (Accord/600, Concerto/R8 and Legend/800). In fact one senior designer put it in far more definitive terms – he could not believe that management were “being so stupid” for starting the project from such an inappropriate base point and that he said that he “almost cried” when he saw the Domani for the first time

Originally posted by Skatiechik
Hewitt should be sacked over this.


Why???? For not propping up a car manufacturer the market will not support? I think you are dragging politics in to this thread. Naughty naughty.

Originally posted by Skatiechik
I didn't say there were no BMW bits in the 75 :rolleyes:

Erm yes you did: So we know thr Rover 75 is entirely BRITISH built without re-using old BMW parts.

And according to this: http://www.austin-rover.co.uk/index.htm?hhrstoryf.htm the MINI was based on a BWM platform and using a BWM/Crysler engine developed in Brazil - again not very British.

Now just to put my comments into context - the use of a single platform in multiple cars is neither unusual or particualy something to be worried about. What does annoy me is people waving union jacks over a company the majority of whose recent output was rehashed japanese/german/american products...

Rover has been in trouble for years, I think BMW are guilty of asset stripping and the partenership with honda was better for the company.
If the plant shuts it will be disatrous for the west midlands. I'm oringinally from that area and have relitives who work there. 6000 jobs is a lot in one go and there will be further losses in the supply industries.
I heard on the news that the phoenix group directors might be inverstigated for taking large salaries and penisions when the workers pension fund is down.

Originally posted by evildrneil
Erm yes you did:

I didn't :( I said re-using 'old' BMW parts, i.e basing it on an existing platform. Anyway I knew what I meant even if I failed to get it across in english.

Originally posted by pinhead
Why???? For not propping up a car manufacturer the market will not support? I think you are dragging politics in to this thread. Naughty naughty.

For announcing a company was in adminstration, when it was blatently untrue at the time.

It is the whole war thing again, Iraq has nuclear weapons lets invade, oh dear we got it wrong they didn't have nuclear weapons.

Originally posted by Sal22
If the plant shuts it will be disatrous for the west midlands. I'm oringinally from that area and have relitives who work there. 6000 jobs is a lot in one go and there will be further losses in the supply industries.

It will be 15-20,000 jobs at least in my estimate.


I was only there two weeks ago as well and the whole place was very cheerful about the chines deal. Things can change so much in two weeks :(

Due down there next weekend too, won't be so much fun now :(

Rover have been struggling for at least 5 years with little help from the Government, it is a private company after all, funny how an election round the corner brings out Blair and Brown for a photo shoot, could it be that Rover is situated in a narrow margin constituency.

I think Charles Moore put it best in yesterday's Telegraph leader. He remarked that we still, sentimentally, cling to the idea of goods having an absolute, 'intrinsic worth'. In truth, and I concur with Moore here, they are 'worth what people are prepared to pay for them'. Sadly, in this case, people were not prepared to pay for Rover products, regardless of any mismanagement, asset-stripping by BMW, lack of patriotic feeling or any other variables.

Abdul,
You imply that the Tories 'killed off' the coal industry. You really must do better than this. In 1983, The Monopolies and Mergers Commission had shown that 75% of the pits were making a loss. Ian MacGregor endeavoured to bring the industry to break-even point by 1988. In Sept 1983, he announced his intention to cut the workforce by 64,ooo over 3 years, reducing capacity by 25 million tons. In Dec 1983,, he decided to accelerate the programme, aiming to cut the workforce by 44,000 over 2 years. The redundancy terms were generous: £1,000 for each year of service, paid as a lump sum, the scheme to operate for 2 years only, so that a man who had worked in the pits all his life would get over £30,000. In 1984, MacGregor proposed 20,000 redundancies. The T

I think Charles Moore put it best in yesterday's Telegraph leader. He remarked that we still cling , sentimentally, to the notion that goods have an absolute, 'intrinsic worth'. In reality, and I

-SORRY!
Iin reality, and I concur with Moore here, goods are worth, 'what people are prepared to pay for them'. Sadly, people were not prepared to pay the price for Rover goods. This is regardless of any lack of patriotism, asset-stripping by BMW, mismanagement, or any other variables.

Fellow posters,
Please accept my sincere apologies here, my pc is 'playing up' somewhat. I have not been at the wine again, honestly!

Re Abdul's point about Tories 'killing off' coal industry: after MacGregor proposed the 20,000 redundancies, the Tories were confident that the figure could be achieved without anyone being forced to leave the industry. Around 20 pits would close, and the annual capacity would be reduced by 4 million tons a year. Far from 'killing' the industry, in 1983/84, under the Tories, the coal industry received £1.3 Billion in subsidies from the tax payer.

What killed the coal industry was a cluster of variables, including Arthur Scargill's ludicrous attempts at Marxist Insurrection, cheap Polish coal, and the fickle nature of the global network of production and exchange.

well its not much to do with asset stripping at all. according to the channel 4 news, bmw left the company with £1.2bn in the coffers.

the very term - asset stripping is self explanatory... taking the assets that are WORTH something, thats good business sense, as its unfair to hold back the potential of one brand just because another isnt doing well. Its survival of the fittest in the car business, and rover just ain't all that.

this leads on to the next question, Phoenix Ventures, taking the company over for a tenner, but having access to £1.2bn - thats pretty good economics if you want to line your pockets.,

its a private company, its gone under. let that £100m go back into skills training and getting people re-employed if the car making remains an unviable option.

Originally posted by 1Man&hisBMW
this leads on to the next question, Phoenix Ventures, taking the company over for a tenner, but having access to £1.2bn - thats pretty good economics if you want to line your pockets.


Didn't they also pay themselves £30 million in wages since buying the company? Ah, those great British company owners. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Snook
Didn't they also pay themselves £30 million in wages since buying the company? Ah, those great British company owners. :rolleyes:


Mmmm... and I thought it was the workers that took the p*ss. makes you wonder doesn't it?

Just got back from the support rally for the workers :clap:

How did it go?

I heard on the news today that the workers had been sent home on full pay. It's a shame they couldn't be kept working to finish off the last few cars that need assembling.

Well considering it was only two days notice, on a working day and only advertised on the internet I think it went very very well. It was well organised with cars parking in Cofton Park opposite Q gate where the conference centre is ( where all the press congregate for those who have never been). I estimate about 250-300 cars were there waving banners, and giving support to the workers.


My guess is Rover will dissapear into the history books (which is a shame in my eyes :()and MG will still carry on, but it is early days yet. Lets hope they can strike a deal with the Chinese.

What concerns me is not how many jobs are lost at Rover, but how many are going to be lost in Sheffield by component makers.

Do Tempered Spring and Laycock's still make parts for them, and if so how many jobs will be lost at these places?

It is all very, very sad indeed. However, Rover are not the first to go into admin, and they will not be the last. There are always repercussions whenever this kind of thing happens, and thousands of faceless people suffer as a consequence in ways that Owdlad refers to.

It is genuinely touching to see how strongly the public feel about the company's plight. However, I do not recall the same degree of concern, even amongst the Sheffield public, when great numbers of people were made redundant by Midland Bank in Sheffield and London in the 1980s. Midland, reeling from the idiotic Crocker Bank fiasco, lost whole departments of people in their Sheffield headquarters alone. The Bank were obviously a global network, but they originated in this country, and were every bit as 'British' as Rover. I do not recall many tears shed for the thousands who were made redundant, or for the Bank's eventual takeover by the Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation...

Originally posted by timo
I do not recall many tears shed for the thousands who were made redundant, or for the Bank's eventual takeover by the Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation...

I Dont recall bankers shedding many tears for the thousands of sheffield steel workers made redundant in the 1980's

Originally posted by Skatiechik
I estimate about 250-300 cars were there waving banners, and giving support to the workers.

This was covered on BBC news tonight, showed some MG ZR's being driven with huge flags flying from them :thumbsup:

For the anti Rover brigade you'll be pleased to know theres even an online petition to save MG Rover.

http://forums.mg-rover.org/showthread.php?t=67817

Mega Monty,
Your remark regarding the lack of sympathy from bankers towards redundant steelworkers in the 80s may be largely true in regard to the management classes. Regarding the workforce, so to speak, many female members of staff were actually married to steelworkers. They shed tears, I must assure you. Fortunately, in my case, I had the cash and qualifications to pursue a route which led to my working in higher education. I was fortunate. Redundant bank workers [not the 'bankers' you refer to] often suffered as badly as redundant steelworkers.

I do hope that you do not bracket me with the 'anti-Rover brigade'. That is most definately not the case. I just do not see that they are a 'special' case which symbolises 'Britishness', the way some seem to do. Also, as I said earlier, due to a cluster of variables, the company has not been successful in selling its product. If a lucrative market for the Rover products does not exist, then what is to be done? We cannot force people to buy them. Of course, I have great sympathy with the hardworking workforce, and also with management. I take no pleasure in anyone's misery.

What I found to be particulary galling was the sight if Blair and the rest running round the area like headless chickens.
Ans lets hope the workers get some decent redundancy and are given all the help available to find another job.

How times have changed since the days of Red Robbo in the 1970s, and not only in respect of the current weakness of the unions. . In particular, in order for the Britsh economy to function well, it is becoming increasingly recognised that we don't particularly need a large manufacturing sector based on heavy industry, nor does it matter particularly if car-companies are foreign owned. The future for many developed economies lies in services and high-tech, high value added industries.

Originally posted by LordChaverly
The future for many developed economies lies in services and high-tech, high value added industries. :gag:

no one will find this - http://www.insensible.co.uk/jagermonsters/uploads/rover.jpg remotely funny then.

That link is terrible Phan,it really hits home.:confused:

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
no one will find this - http://www.insensible.co.uk/jagermonsters/uploads/rover.jpg remotely funny then.

I actually find it in quite bad taste, and I don't suspect the 20 odd thousand people who will lose thier living will find it funny either.

Originally posted by LordChaverly
The future for many developed economies lies in services and high-tech, high value added industries.

I agree. Far too many towns have died because of clinging onto an industry that collapsed years ago. Manchester did it with cotton and now Sheffield must do the same. There is no way that Sheffield is going to be the steel and cutlery capital of the world again because of cheap imports.

The AMP at Waverley is a good start - a Boeing research facillity (albeit a small one) is a bloody good commercial name to bandy about to encourage other businesses to come to Sheffield.

http://moblog.co.uk/blogs/2196/moblog_32ff9468a43bd.jpg

Did you actually read about a few posts before your post? :rolleyes:

well...now Rover are not honouring their warranties on their cars.....

I think that says a few things...

1. they wont be selling any new cars for a while

2. they have alienated their existing customers, who I assume will not be too happy to have to fork out for repairs

3. rover is well and truly over

4. chinese will buy it for pennies, and maybe revive it.

Sorry Skatiechik, I have been following the thread and I found the image before phan posted it and then went out to watch the match. I left the tab open on mozilla, posted it when I got in and then went to bed.
Funny though

Originally posted by carcrash
Funny though

Funny that 20,000 people are losing their jobs, :rolleyes: Weird sense of humour :loopy:

Sorry but I just don't find it funny in the slightest!

And at the end of the day, £6.5million of taxpayers money down the pan.

:rant:

Originally posted by Mo
And at the end of the day, £6.5million of taxpayers money down the pan.

:rant:

I am afraid that is a very very very shortsighted view. It will cost less in taxpayers money to keep the company afloat then it will to let it go down the pan.

It will cost the tax payer FAR FAR FAR more in social benefits, regeneration schemes, retraining employees, etc, etc

Originally posted by Skatiechik
I am afraid that is a very very very shortsighted view. It will cost less in taxpayers money to keep the company afloat then it will to let it go down the pan.

It will cost the tax payer FAR FAR FAR more in social benefits, regeneration schemes, retraining employees, etc, etc

But it's a no hoper. The money hasn't gone into actual investment, but just on wages to allow the workers to go home and wait for the inevitable to happen. :loopy:

The Lab party should be instigating an enquiry and issuing appropriate action against the robbers who were allowed to run the company into the ground and run away with the workers' pension fund.

Originally posted by Skatiechik
I am afraid that is a very very very shortsighted view. It will cost less in taxpayers money to keep the company afloat then it will to let it go down the pan.

It will cost the tax payer FAR FAR FAR more in social benefits, regeneration schemes, retraining employees, etc, etc

that's nonsense. Long term government intervention to keep a company afloat that by market forces should go under will in the long run cost more than retraining the workforce and having them work on something that actually makes money for the economy rather than just sucking in money.

Mo - I've not heard anything about their pension funds, what exactly has happened to it?

Originally posted by Cyclone

Mo - I've not heard anything about their pension funds, what exactly has happened to it?

Wheeling and dealing in such a way that has lost the pension fund some £400million. Story explained here (http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/business/articles/timid399666?source=)

Originally posted by Mo
Wheeling and dealing in such a way that has lost the pension fund some £400million. Story explained here (http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/business/articles/timid399666?source=)

you're misrepresenting it then, they haven't 'run away' with the pension fund, more like they've squandered it by investing it badly. They certainly haven't pocketed it themselves as your post suggests.

Originally posted by Cyclone
you're misrepresenting it then, they haven't 'run away' with the pension fund, more like they've squandered it by investing it badly. They certainly haven't pocketed it themselves as your post suggests.

Bad choice of words, but they have certainly behaved, at best in a very irresponsible way. The end result is the same though, thousands of workers losing their jobs and highly likely their pensions.

I'm afraid no matter what anyones 'patriotic' oppinion it seems to me that Rover just can not survive in the current automotive commercial climate. It is simply too small with products that are too old and not selling to survive as a general manufacturer and without the interesting vehicles to let it survive as a niche marketer. If it does survive at all it will probably be going the way of skoda, seat, nissan (to an extent), rolls royce, bugatti, lambergini, bently etc. etc. etc. and be swallowed by one of the large automotive conglomerates and be a way of them selling more (slightly tweaked) chasis with a different body shell and badge. The way the automotive industry seems to be going is develop once, sell many times and develop again and Rover is more develop (or borrow!) once and tweak many times to try and eke out the life of an old design :(

Skatiechick,
As I said, a few postings previously, your point about the relative costs of the 'bridging loan' given to Rover, and the future social security bills also faced by the taxpayer gave me pause for thought. However, on reflection, if we applied this logic, of bailing out ailing companies with taxpayers' money, there would be nothing whatsoever left in the pockets of the taxpayer to fund the 'welfare safety net'. If the government can do this for Rover, then why not apply the same logic and bail out all companies in dire straits?

I do not wish to upset you here, as I realise your feelings about Rover run very deeply. However, I for one do not wish my money [and that is what it comes down to] to be used in this way. It goes against my own, deeply held, conviction that the role of the state is certainly not to intervene in matters of business.

Cyclone's point about 'retraining' the workforce to make sellable, profitable products for the market is one of the best points I have yet heard on this thread.

Looks like Rover is finally going to the wall......

What do you make of the £150m 'aid package' for the employees? I think its probably better then spending £100m on a company that went out of viability with square wheels.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/050415/140/fgem9.html

With MG Rover closing down i just wondered what effect this will have in sheffield because i would have thought with sheffield being a major steel producing centre they would have been made some parts in the city

Don't know where the components are manufactured but I would imagine local sales/servicing staff will be affected at the main dealers???

but sheffield has an idependant rover specialist anyway which ive found do a better job than the people at rover.

there number is 24701155

I'm working longer hours tomorrow due to the whole Rover thing..... expected to be a bit of rush on at Jobcentres in the midlands region.

On the news I saw a worker carrying 'his' tools to his car - they were a sorry looking set which fell off his trolley as he carried them.

It's no wonder people criticised the build quality of Rover cars.

Originally posted by alchresearch
On the news I saw a worker carrying 'his' tools to his car - they were a sorry looking set which fell off his trolley as he carried them.

It's no wonder people criticised the build quality of Rover cars.

You say "His Tools" so theres no actual proof that they're actually Rovers tools, they maybe his own personal set or some old cast offs from years ago. Theres also no proof that those tools you saw have ever assembled anything in a Rover car, how do you know that the guy didn't work in maintenance i.e. maintaining plant and equipment ?

As for build quality, myself and several family members and friends have owned Rovers and associated products over the years and personally I have never come across an instance of poor build quality or poor reliability.

Judging by the comment on the Rover thread in General Chat, people dont seem to care a hoot about Rover.

I wouldn't have thought that any of the steel used in those cars comes from Sheffield. I thought taht Sheffield only produced specialist steels now?

Joe

I'm sorry that people have lost their jobs but it happens all the time. I do not understand this romantic attactment people have got to this company. Have they made a decent product in the last 5 years. BMW one of the most sucessful companies in the world couldn't get it to work.
I grew up in an area deeply affected by the closure of the steel industry and the coal industry.

It was probably the management at rover that was the problem.
The workforce could only produce the cars they were told to.
I bet that the workers were never consulted about the product.

Someone once told me that there was sign in the boardroom of one of the major car makers that said"Beware of ideas from the shop floor" and when a new CEO took over he had added to it "But listen because they may be better than ours"

It's the we are managers so we know better than you attitude that has ruined Brittish industry

Originally posted by mega_monty
As for build quality, myself and several family members and friends have owned Rovers and associated products over the years and personally I have never come across an instance of poor build quality or poor reliability.

The same here.

Originally posted by carcrash
Have they made a decent product in the last 5 years.

Well I wouldn't say no to a 75, ZT, ZT-T or a ZR myself.

Originally posted by carcrash
BMW one of the most sucessful companies in the world couldn't get it to work.

They didn't try, they asset stripped and left.

Seeing as we are talking on deaf ears Mega_Monty, are you planning on coming on Sunday?

Sunday - Gaydon Motor Museum at 10am.

Convoy to Longbridge Q Gate for midday.

The National and local press are covering it, and the workers all know and will be there to meet us.

Bring a packed lunch !!!

Toilets available at the Austin Rover Social Club - maps available on the day, Also at local pubs etc

More info available on www.savemgrover.com

doesnt matter much what anybody says, they are not selling the units, and that is underlined by having nothing in the coffers.

they are a good workforce, the plant is good - and I think if another car maker was given incentive to come there, they may take over the plant at least and make a viable car, other then rover.

there is no future in rover, and to say BMW asset stripped is a very wide remark to make, since they did pay a substantial figure to buy the company and left it with £1.2bn in the bank.

Nobody is going to invest in a lemon no matte rhow good your staff, if your bottom line product isn't competitive in the market place.

Now rover have failed to honour their warranties, its another blow to their customers and those who have stayed loyal to them.

Its a disgrace and they fully deserve to go to the wall, and let somebody else step in at the plant and make something better and hopefully keep the workforce on.

Skatiechik - I admire your staunch defence of anything Rover whenever the topic comes up, but what is behind the obsession?

Originally posted by shieshuk
Don't know where the components are manufactured but I would imagine local sales/servicing staff will be affected at the main dealers???
Well they now have nothing to sell!

skatiechik
TVR is Russian, and who gives a **** about Uk factories that are foreign owned, I still won't be buying them.

well, the workers in those factories and the workers in the firms supplying them probably do.

Out of interest, who will you be buying your next car from?

Without wishing to appear condescending, your comments in this thread indicate a fundamental lack of understanding about economics, capitalism, market economies, stock markets and the ownership and control of business. Simply put, ownership doesn’t matter and if you think it does, then the logical conclusion for you would be to abolish the stock market. We’ve been there; it was called Communism. You seem to advocate some form of mercantilist utopia where British goods cater for our every need, where we are self-sufficient on our own produce and where good old Blighty is god’s own country. While they are entertaining in a retro kind of way they are also deeply depressing and frankly quite pathetic, rather like some bitter old drunk sounding of in the corner of a manky pub. Put down the Daily Mail and pick up some text books!

I blame the management !!!

Bye bye Rover....just noticed in the Star motor guide that one dealer has already slashed prices on MG Rover models to get shut of 'em.

I've heard that some dealers are selling them off at up to half price - they're owed lots from MG Rover that they're now unlikely to see and need to have some cash coming in quick.

Originally posted by hotphil
I've heard that some dealers are selling them off at up to half price - they're owed lots from MG Rover that they're now unlikely to see and need to have some cash coming in quick.

heard the same thing, theres some rover bargains to be had if you can cope with the warranty side of it. not very nice for those folk who took delivery of 05' reg rovers... ouch.

Originally posted by 1Man&hisBMW
heard the same thing, theres some rover bargains to be had if you can cope with the warranty side of it. not very nice for those folk who took delivery of 05' reg rovers... ouch.

The warranty arrangement would be with the dealer, as per the usual supply chain management arrangement in the UK.

Dealers are linked to the motor manufacturer but are still indepenedent businesses. If they were a legitimate business they would most likely be a member of the SMMT and have insurance to cover a customer's servicing and repair needs under warranty.

Not sure who (if anyone) is the MG Rover dealer for Sheffield, but I wouldn't be surprised if it were part of a large group like Hartwell or Reg Vardy who have an 'x' brand franchise in one town and a 'y' brand in another.

Originally posted by royjames
Looks like the last british car manufacturer is going to go out of buisness.
What a real shame that our last car maker has had to call in the receivers,and all those jobs will be at stake and the other jobs which rely on rover.
I think this is a disaster for the country. Hi roy im a life long car fan its so sad to see rover go like that the last one
left is now gone but look at the legacy it has left cars like the SD1 and 2000. its a dam shame 101 years and know its over.

R.I.P Rover we will not forget you. :cry:

Originally posted by t020
Skatiechik - I admire your staunch defence of anything Rover whenever the topic comes up, but what is behind the obsession?

It is the same obsession that has reduced grown men to tears over the past few days. I am also sure they will be many more shedding tears at the rally tomorrow. To many many people it is more than just a private business.


Originally posted by tallyho
well, the workers in those factories and the workers in the firms supplying them probably do.

I am sure I have read that very few british firms supply the foreign factories in this country and most parts are imported unlike Rover.


Originally posted by tallyho
Out of interest, who will you be buying your next car from?

It will be a Rover car, and most probably will always be a Rover Car.

Originally posted by tallyho
Without wishing to appear condescending, your comments in this thread indicate a fundamental lack of understanding about economics, capitalism, market economies, stock markets and the ownership and control of business.

This very much reads as a 'Personal Attack' on myself for my beliefs and passions for the last major British Car Manufacturer.

I did try reading your last post but it was so boring, I didn't manage to get through it sorry.

I understand business and capitalism fine thank you very much, including playing the stock market and being quite sucessful (albeit a virtual online game as unfortunately I do not have the capital myself) Many other people in this thread have expressed their views on this topic, and whilst I disagree I have not felt the need to have a personal attack on them everyone is titled to their own opinion.

I am still very much of the belief 20,000 jobs should not be lost, and a major part of our British Heritage should be helped to continue in some form (I am certain it will with the MG Brand living on).

What exactly do we now have left in British Manufacturing on a large scale? Not much!

Originally posted by 1Man&hisBMW
heard the same thing, theres some rover bargains to be had if you can cope with the warranty side of it. not very nice for those folk who took delivery of 05' reg rovers... ouch.

UK car buyers have a good eye for a bargain, and once the prices start to tumble, more people will come into the market if they're priced cheap enough, theres always someone that will always buy them.

When Daewoo's first came on the market, old rebadged Vauxhall models, they still sold, many still on the road today.
Not everyone follows like sheep wanting the latest bang up to date models.

Put is this way they're far more value for money than a BMW!

Originally posted by mega_monty


Put is this way they're far more value for money than a BMW!

yep but they depreciate like a timeshare in Beirut, and handle like a turd on pram wheels ;)

Originally posted by 1Man&hisBMW
yep but they depreciate like a timeshare in Beirut, and handle like a turd on pram wheels ;)

Can I ask what that experience is based on?

As every Austin/Rover I have driven handles well.

Originally posted by mega_monty
Put is this way they're far more value for money than a BMW!

Agreed! :thumbsup: Your paying for quality, not a name.

Originally posted by 1Man&hisBMW
to say BMW asset stripped is a very wide remark to make, since they did pay a substantial figure to buy the company and left it with £1.2bn in the bank.

Its a truthful remark, so if they didnt asset strip, why doesn't the current mini belong to Rover and why does Land Rover now belong to Ford.

Originally posted by Skatiechik
Can I ask what that experience is based on?

As every Austin/Rover I have driven handles well.

when you get a BMW you will know :) Its not called the ultimate driving machine for nothing.

Originally posted by 1Man&hisBMW
when you get a BMW you will know :) Its not called the ultimate driving machine for nothing.

So I gather from that statement that you have never driven a Austin or a Rover, so infact have nothing to base that statement on other than hearsay.

Originally posted by mega_monty
Its a truthful remark, so if they didnt asset strip, why doesn't the current mini belong to Rover and why does Land Rover now belong to Ford.

Simply because they got rid of the bad apple, which was Rover. It would have destroyed the other cars with its pi55 poor reputation over the last 10 years.

Lets not say they were taken away from Rover, but more Rover was the problem holding the other brands back. They are a greater success now, and Minis are being built in Britain :)

Originally posted by Skatiechik
So I gather from that statement that you have never driven a Austin or a Rover, so infact have nothing to base that statement on other than hearsay.

make your mind up, I said when you drive a BMW you will know the difference. Fact is Rover are turd, they are unviable, and I feel sorry for the workforce having to build cars with no future.

I have driven all sorts of cars, rovers included. Owned a few of them, and the only decent one (Metro) was cheap crap build quality.

the end :thumbsup:

Originally posted by 1Man&hisBMW
yep but they depreciate like a timeshare in Beirut, and handle like a turd on pram wheels ;)

So do BMW's and in a much bigger way!

I know a guy bought a BMW for £40k sorry dont know model details as im ignorant of BMW models, 2 door M3 type thing, traded in year later got less than £20k.

Myself bought a property at same time for that amount, today now valued at £90k. So where does the BMW stand in all of that ?

Cant understand why people will pay extortionate prices for effectively a box on wheels ?

Originally posted by mega_monty
So do BMW's and in a much bigger way!

I know a guy bought a BMW for £40k sorry dont know model details as im ignorant of BMW models, 2 door M3 type thing, traded in year later got less than £20k.

Myself bought a property at same time for that amount, today now valued at £90k. So where does the BMW stand in all of that ?

Cant understand why people will pay extortionate prices for effectively a box on wheels ?

which rover do you know thats 40k to start with! :)

Plus, we dont know the circumstances of the trade in, we all 'know someone' who did x, y and z.

I have owned loads of cars before this, and in all honesty this isn't the best one, but over Rover... hell yes.

Originally posted by 1Man&hisBMW
which rover do you know thats 40k to start with! :)


Precisely!!!!! Your paying for the name nothing else with BMW. More money does definitely not mean better.

Whereas Rover have always built good cars which are value for money and in recent years still managed to acheive this on a limited budget.

Originally posted by 1Man&hisBMW
which rover do you know thats 40k to start with! :)

Just merely demonstating that BMW's depreciate in value and in a big way

Originally posted by 1Man&hisBMW
when you get a BMW you will know :) Its not called the ultimate driving machine for nothing.

Yep, for inadequates that have something missing in life, like a small penis and need that something bigger to boost their manhood.

Originally posted by mega_monty
Yep, for inadequates that have something missing in life, like a small penis and need that something bigger to boost their manhood.


LMFAO. That is the funniest thing I have read all day :D :lol: :banana:

not rising to the bait my friend, clearly you two are in bed with each other on this one, fact is Rover is stuffed. The in's and out's of it don't matter much, you both seem preoccupied with saving Rover for the name, not for the long term of the people who work at Longbridge. I don't see how it would have remained 'British' if the Chinese took over. What if they outsourced the parts to China, which would still mean redundancies. As mentioned previously in this thread, what you know about economics you could write on the back of a stamp!

Who would have thought, one day, that once Jewel in Britains manufacturing crown would be refused by the Chinese as being a bad investment.

One word...turd. If they wanted to make 5h!t cars, they can do that pretty well over there in China, and 30% of the cost. Thats ecomomics, bit like shopping at Netto instead of Waitrose.

Goodnight and sweet dreams x :D I think the Longbridge plant would look great producing Mazda's

Originally posted by 1Man&hisBMW
you both seem preoccupied with saving Rover for the name, not for the long term of the people who work at Longbridge.


Certainly not true. I took a day off on Monday to attend the rally at Longbridge to support the workers and let them know their are people in this country that are concerned over their jobs.

I will also be attending this tomorrow

Sunday - Gaydon Motor Museum at 10am.

Convoy to Longbridge Q Gate for midday.

The National and local press are covering it, and the workers all know and will be there to meet us.

Bring a packed lunch !!!

Toilets available at the Austin Rover Social Club - maps available on the day, Also at local pubs etc

More info available on www.savemgrover.com

which will involve rising at stupid time in the morning to get there. This is again to let the workers know there are people in this country who care.

Originally posted by Skatiechik
It is the same obsession that has reduced grown men to tears over the past few days. I am also sure they will be many more shedding tears at the rally tomorrow. To many many people it is more than just a private business.


But that's all it is.

Originally posted by Skatiechik
Certainly not true. I took a day off on Monday to attend the rally at Longbridge to support the workers and let them know their are people in this country that are concerned over their jobs.

I will also be attending this tomorrow

Sunday - Gaydon Motor Museum at 10am.

Convoy to Longbridge Q Gate for midday.

The National and local press are covering it, and the workers all know and will be there to meet us.

Bring a packed lunch !!!

Toilets available at the Austin Rover Social Club - maps available on the day, Also at local pubs etc

More info available on www.savemgrover.com

which will involve rising at stupid time in the morning to get there. This is again to let the workers know there are people in this country who care.

As much as I want to believe you the fundamental fact is, Rover can't survive as a viable RUNNING business. I have maintained all the way through I feel for the workers, they are a good workforce, and maybe if another company came in and took over, they could make a different car there. Why is that such a bad thing? Its either that or mass job losses. The site owner is already planning to redevelop the site, so are you going to go and picket them aswell?

The save MG Rover site has some comments on there that would have some right wing groups distancing themselves from it. Its not patriotic, its ridiculous.

Originally posted by t020
But that's all it is.

To you maybe, to others no it is much much more than that. I don't expect you to understand or many others who have commented on this thread.

Originally posted by Skatiechik
To you maybe, to others no it is much much more than that. I don't expect you to understand or many others who have commented on this thread.

Then explain to us why it means so much to you.... its support for the workers, thats fair enough, we support them aswell - but not through pi55ing money away through taxes to an unviable company. I rather that SAME money go not into the hands of some venture group, but into the hands of the employees to help them get along, retrained, and re-employed.

Are you sure you havent just taken delivery of an 05' reg Rover and worried about your warranty not being worth the paper its written on?

About depreciation, people buy products from companies that have a reputation, reasonably liked in the marketplace and competitive. Notice I never said invest in products, as I dont feel any car is an investment, but when the dealers are slashing prices, that hardly retains market confidence. Thats what you can trust the more reputable manufacturers not to do, so how about a support group for the people who have bought new Rover at full price, to find they have lost some 30% of the value in a 5 weeks?

I believe Keith sums it up so well, so will quote his blog from here (http://www.austin-rover.co.uk/index.htm?blogs200504f.htm)

I have been suffering with this for the last week - it has felt like I was losing a best friend, and there was nothing I could do, except stand by and helplessly watch from the touchlines...

That's why I'll be at Longbridge on Sunday, expressing my feelings - to some, the factory may just be a building, but to me, it symbolises so much more. And its closure signifies a lot about the deep and painful changes this country is going through.

Many workers are also planned to be in attendance tomorrow, as they were on Monday. It was such an emotional event on Monday as I am sure it will be tomorrow.

Skatiechik,
Thanks for your reply.


“I did try reading your last post but it was so boring, I didn't manage to get through it sorry.”


If you had read and understood this post you would have seen how my view has been objectively constructed on the basis of economic orthodoxy. In other words, it is clear to see how I justify my case and it is patently not some ill-informed emotive guff. If you disagree with my interpretation of events, it is up to you to show why and to back your own case up in a similar way. Failure to do so speaks more about your views than mine. If you found it boring (the fate of the world and UK economies?) I’ll try and write in a more accessible manner in future and not use too many big words.


“This very much reads as a 'Personal Attack' on myself for my beliefs and passions for the last major British Car Manufacturer.”


It’s a shoddy defence to cry ‘personal attack of my beliefs’. Debate and discussion is all about being able to formulate, communicate and defend your position. You can do this by rebutting alternative views and showing how your view is most valid. You have failed to do this so far. Surely a forum is all about hearing views with a view to understanding your own position better. If not, then it’s simply the cyber equivalent of writing on the toilet wall, that great addition to civilisation. Isn’t it all too commonplace to hear of this supposed right to freedom from any questioning of one’s beliefs? The only political systems that restrict the right to question another’s beliefs have been or are totalitarian (Nazi Germany, Soviet Union) or theocratic regimes (Taliban, Iran).



“I am sure I have read that very few British firms supply the foreign factories in this country and most parts are imported unlike Rover”


FYI
The micra is constructed in Sunderland with an 80% local content rate and in 1993, with 182,207 cars shipped to foreign markets, Nissan was Britain's largest car exporter - ahead of traditional export winners, Rover and Ford.

The UK has the two most productive car plants in Europe according to World Markets Research Centre's annual European Automotive Productivity Index. They are Nissan Nissan's Sunderland plant and Toyota Burnaston.
http://www.manufacturingtalk.com/news/woa/woa100.html

Surely, great examples of British manufacturing? On the basis of economics, you cannot deny that these are a positive thing for the UK economy. Do you object to them simply because they are foreign owned? Danergous territory there and I’m sure that’s not where you are but again, because you don’t back up your opinions with reasond argument and fact, how do we know?



"I understand business and capitalism fine thank you very much, including playing the stock market"

You might well understand the day to day mechanics of doing business and buying and selling shares but you don’t appear to grasp the underlying framework, in this particular instance, the issue of ownership and control of private enterprise. I know how to use Windows XP but I have no idea how computers work. Consequently, I refrain from getting into debates about computing science.


“What exactly do we now have left in British Manufacturing on a large scale? Not much!”


So? Why is it that during this slow and natural decline of manufacturing industry the UK economy has been expanding both qualitatively and quantitatively? If the assumption is that a declining manufacturing base results in economic malaise, then why is the reverse happening? The UK overtook France a couple of years back to be the world’s fourth largest economy (on a simple GDP basis). The UK runs a deficit in manufactured goods with East Asian countries (this is natural, how can we compete with Chinese cheap labour and superior Japanese manufacturing systems?) but a healthy surplus in services (we are more developed and better educated).

“I am still very much of the belief 20,000 jobs should not be lost”


The UK is enjoying the lowest unemployment rate for decades. These jobs will not be lost, simply moved elsewhere and the process of weeding out dead wood will continue, to the greater good (i.e., the growth and development of the UK economy).

Look forward to your response.

Since the demise of Rover MG has been announced and basically all the Rover dealerships are now up sh*te creek because the warranty etc is void I wonder if we could walk down to Rover and offer £100 for a car ;)

Originally posted by DaBouncer
Since the demise of Rover MG has been announced and basically all the Rover dealerships are now up sh*te creek because the warranty etc is void I wonder if we could walk down to Rover and offer £100 for a car ;)


Worth a try, although we'd have to get there before it makes way for yet more "luxury apartments". ;)

Just because the manufacturer has gone out of business should make no difference. A third party company is selling a new product and is legally bound to offer a one year warranty.

A lot of shops try the old 'manufacturers warranty' claim, but the reason we pay extra from a shop is so that they handle any problems.

If you have a fault, you are supposed to take it back to where you bought it from and they do all the legwork of arranging a repair or replacement.

Originally posted by alchresearch
Just because the manufacturer has gone out of business should make no difference. A third party company is selling a new product and is legally bound to offer a one year warranty.

A lot of shops try the old 'manufacturers warranty' claim, but the reason we pay extra from a shop is so that they handle any problems.

If you have a fault, you are supposed to take it back to where you bought it from and they do all the legwork of arranging a repair or replacement.
Well having a reliable source tell me (who works for a well know south yorkshire car dealership) that any Rover bought now will have NO WARRANTY because it comes from the manufacturer and not the dealership.

Feel free to call any dealership and ask if you have doubts :D

Originally posted by DaBouncer
Well having a reliable source tell me (who works for a well know south yorkshire car dealership) that any Rover bought now will have NO WARRANTY because it comes from the manufacturer and not the dealership.

Feel free to call any dealership and ask if you have doubts :D

Sounds like they're just trying it on and is typical of motor dealers.

According to trading standards, the contract is between you and the trader. The manufacturers warranty is extra to your rights under the sale of goods act.

Originally posted by alchresearch
Just because the manufacturer has gone out of business should make no difference. A third party company is selling a new product and is legally bound to offer a one year warranty.

A lot of shops try the old 'manufacturers warranty' claim, but the reason we pay extra from a shop is so that they handle any problems.

If you have a fault, you are supposed to take it back to where you bought it from and they do all the legwork of arranging a repair or replacement.


Just one thing though..... where are the dealers supposed to get the parts for the repair from when they're no longer being produced?

Portents of Doom!

Apparently they were only days away from a new tv advertising campaign called "meltdown"!

Also try and see the MG poster on some billboards. One is on the corner of Charlotte Road and Queens Road (opposite corner to B&Q).
An old couple are driving the MG into "The Retirement Home" saying "Let's take the MG"!

:D

Originally posted by t020
Just one thing though..... where are the dealers supposed to get the parts for the repair from when they're no longer being produced?

..........and...... where is that trader/dealer going to be when your Rover goes wrong?

Originally posted by cgksheff
............ where is that trader/dealer going to be when your Rover goes wrong?

Exactly. I was responding to alchresearch's point about the dealer.... DEALING with the repairs.

I'm sure there'll be third party manufacturers supplying new and reconditioned Rover parts for years. You can still get them for many other makes which aren't around anymore.

I've just had my 306 serviced and the garage used Bosch, motorcraft and other components. Not one genuine Peugeot part used because it's essentially the same part just more expensive!

Originally posted by alchresearch
I'm sure there'll be third party manufacturers supplying new and reconditioned Rover parts for years. You can still get them for many other makes which aren't around anymore.

I've just had my 306 serviced and the garage used Bosch, motorcraft and other components. Not one genuine Peugeot part used because it's essentially the same part just more expensive!
For one I believe the person in the industry... after all he's a mate and I wasn't asking about buying a car from them, it was just in conversation.

Feel free to obtain proof otherwise.

agree with DaB. There was a news slot on channel 4 i think where they spoke to a disgruntled customer who was told by their dealer no warranty work was being done by rover anymore. they then went on to interview a sales manager who also confirmed it. so, no warranty!

Originally posted by DaBouncer
Well having a reliable source tell me (who works for a well know south yorkshire car dealership) that any Rover bought now will have NO WARRANTY because it comes from the manufacturer and not the dealership.

Feel free to call any dealership and ask if you have doubts :D
Well a reliable source that has just bought a bargain tells me that Gordon Lamb are giving their own 2 year warranty and are doing some good deals to shift the stock.

Originally posted by Tony
Well a reliable source that has just bought a bargain tells me that Gordon Lamb are giving their own 2 year warranty and are doing some good deals to shift the stock.

So after 2 years...... what is the availability of parts going to be like? What is the resale value likely to be? Will it really be such a "bargain" afterall?

I wouldn't have thought that there would be any problem at all with parts.

MGR buy everything in from 3rd party suppliers, and those suppliers make there living from having parts available.

There are plenty of MGR's on the roads, and will be for years to come - why should anyone stop making parts altogether?

Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't touch one with a barge pole, but that's because they are deeply undesirable cars to me. But for those that do buy, there will be plenty of people helping to keep them going.

the argument about the warranty is interesting.

The dealers are not obliged to honour a 3 year manufacturer's warranty. And presumably unless specified otherwise will offer no warranty of there own for the cars.

However, everything that's sold is subject to the sales of goods act, and that specifies that it must be 'fit for purpose'. This includes, not only driving from the garage that day, but for 'a reasonable' length of time.

Reasonable is often defined in the courts, because the retailer and retailee don't agree what is reasonable. But some examples are given somewhere (may have been case law examples, I can't remember). For example, a toaster costing £20 from Argos and dying after 1 year. It's not reasonable that you would expect it to be fault free for any longer given the low price. A Sony television cost £1000, dead on day 366, 1 day out of guarantee. It's reasonable to assume that the item would have a long life given the high price, so the sales of goods act applies.

So for a car, you can probably argue that 3 years without major mechanical defect (not counting replaceables obviously) is just what you would expect and thus the dealer is liable whether they warrant it or not. You may have to take the court though if they disagree when you new MG falls to bits 2 years after you bought it.

Personally the reputation of the MGF puts me off, when it was first produced they were notoriously unreliable and faulty.

Originally posted by tallyho
Skatiechik,
Thanks for your reply.

Look forward to your response.

Frankly I am not interested in all your waffle, I can't see how it effects the fact that 20,000 people are now out of work by debating the intracacies of the economy. However I will reply

I understand capitalism and economy perfectly well as I mentioned before, as do many other people in this thread who have commented and voiced their opinion on the use of government money. Most of this posts in this thread by me have been my opinions on the branding and heritage of the company, rather than the financial situation and economy as it is obvious everyone will have different opinions and mine don't follow the majority

I don't wish to follow in the logical solution that many other people would follow, why should I, everyone is entitled to their own opinions after all. I understand the boundaries of private enterprise perfectly well and the interference with the Governemt but I don't necessarily agree with it.

In the situation over Rover I do believe we should have been more like the french in respect to helping out private industries, european law doesn't stop them. (If this means moving away from the countrys current view on capitalism to socialism so be it) This is not any old company, this is a company that has been in existence in some form or other for 100 years. It has been through highs and low, generations of families have worked at longbridge. It is an institution.

Rover is not the only company to suffer from the fall in demand and the increased competition in the car market place in recent years. Many foreign companies have seen government hand outs to keep them going. It won't be much longer before Jaguar go (which will be another let down for the west midlands) and General Motors is having trouble in the US (I bet the US helps them out). It is just a sorry state of affairs that no-one was willing to help find Rover when they needed it to get out the new models the company needed to survive and succeed. If only they could have lasted till the RDX-60 came out.

Now I do wonder what people on this thread would be saying if Corus was in financial difficulties, would you be saying no to any government help then? Bearing in mind the company employs over 30,000 people and the worst effected area would be South Yorkshire.

Originally posted by t020
So after 2 years...... what is the availability of parts going to be like? What is the resale value likely to be? Will it really be such a "bargain" afterall?

Warranty - 1st year is normally provided by the manufacturer and the last two years by the dealer.

Spare Parts - The Spare parts division has been seperate for a while now with XPart (http://www.xpart.com/html_content/pressReleaseEnglish_20050405.htm) (spares) and Caterpillar (logistics) providing them. Also spare parts have also been available for Rover products through other dealerships (non-Rover) for a while now. So the spares issue isn't a problem.

Residual Values - Cars still within their 3 year warranty period will see an initial effect on the value of their cars, which is to be expected (it has been reported a 10% drop). However those cars which are older will not be effected as most people buying second hand cars are not interested in brand, they are looking for 'value for money'.

It looks like some companies are cashing in on the panic already

http://www.warrantydirect.co.uk/quote_page1.html?apc=31255524365024524

Originally posted by Skatiechik
Warranty - 1st year is normally provided by the manufacturer and the last two years by the dealer.


is it just like that with rover then, bacause with other brands, even if you import from germany now for example will come with 3 yrs european wide warranty, which means the manufacturer picks up the bill.

i just wondering how it will work then unless you take it back to the same dealer all the time?

I have to say I haven't been reading the lastest on warranty issues that is what I read when the adminstration started last week.

There is however an indepth thread on the subject on http://forums.mg-rover.org/ , (you have to register to read from memory) but if you know of anyone who is worried I'd suggest you point them in that direction.

your basically putting the welfare of those 20k people above the welfare of the economy as a whole. Which is fair enough if that's what you think should be done, although I don't agree.

It would be illegal for the government to help out though and it is illegal if the French help Peugoet or whoever. At least directly.

Jaguar has been owned by Ford for sometime. And both Ford and GM have taken a hit recently apparently with buying shifting towards the Asian makers in the US market.

Originally posted by Skatiechik
Frankly I am not interested in all your waffle, I can't see how it effects the fact that 20,000 people are now out of work by debating the intracacies of the economy. However I will reply

I understand capitalism and economy perfectly well as I mentioned before, as do many other people in this thread who have commented and voiced their opinion on the use of government money. Most of this posts in this thread by me have been my opinions on the branding and heritage of the company, rather than the financial situation and economy as it is obvious everyone will have different opinions and mine don't follow the majority

I don't wish to follow in the logical solution that many other people would follow, why should I, everyone is entitled to their own opinions after all. I understand the boundaries of private enterprise perfectly well and the interference with the Governemt but I don't necessarily agree with it.

In the situation over Rover I do believe we should have been more like the french in respect to helping out private industries, european law doesn't stop them. (If this means moving away from the countrys current view on capitalism to socialism so be it) This is not any old company, this is a company that has been in existence in some form or other for 100 years. It has been through highs and low, generations of families have worked at longbridge. It is an institution.

Rover is not the only company to suffer from the fall in demand and the increased competition in the car market place in recent years. Many foreign companies have seen government hand outs to keep them going. It won't be much longer before Jaguar go (which will be another let down for the west midlands) and General Motors is having trouble in the US (I bet the US helps them out). It is just a sorry state of affairs that no-one was willing to help find Rover when they needed it to get out the new models the company needed to survive and succeed. If only they could have lasted till the RDX-60 came out.

Now I do wonder what people on this thread would be saying if Corus was in financial difficulties, would you be saying no to any government help then? Bearing in mind the company employs over 30,000 people and the worst effected area would be South Yorkshire.

Originally posted by Cyclone
your basically putting the welfare of those 20k people above the welfare of the economy as a whole. Which is fair enough if that's what you think should be done, although I don't agree.

Hmm maybe a bit strong, the money that Rover needed to tide them over and invest in new models is small-fry in the grand scale of things. I mean it would be considerably less than what the government spent on the millenium dome after all. I believe if Rover had the money for much needed R&D it wouldn't be in administration now.

Still let the race for MG continue :D

We could get the Government to pump money into all the failing businesses in this country, that way we'd all be in work and nothing would ever close down, no matter how badly run or how much money was lost. That's show Johnny Foreigner!

Originally posted by Skatiechik
Hmm maybe a bit strong, the money that Rover needed to tide them over and invest in new models is small-fry in the grand scale of things. I mean it would be considerably less than what the government spent on the millenium dome after all. I believe if Rover had the money for much needed R&D it wouldn't be in administration now.

Still let the race for MG continue :D

It's been loosing money for years, what makes you think that a one off investment would turn it around?
Past performance indicates that the money would be lost and the firm would either require another handout or end up folding after the money is exhausted. Investment alone doesn't turn a company around, and the global economic situation makes secondary manufacturing in the uk difficult to make profitable.

:banana: :banana: :banana: :banana:
As a Rover Streetwise Owner I am very happy at the momment with the car because the company that sold me it (Eric Steads Eccelsfield) are standing to all Rover car problems if any according to sales agreements at the time of sale.
This I am very happy with as still about two year still left if any problem on cover.
:thumbsup:
So if anybody else out there has any problems talk to your dealers and see what they say.
Would love to hear from any Steetwise owners as if we keep these cars may become classic car owners as they did not make many of them.
Anybody that has one will now you always look twice if you see one on the road and give a little nod :headbang: or that :wave: and its nice like car owners of some makes did at one time.
But this day and age nobody has the time and all you get some times is:huh: or :confused: or even:shakes: .
We should all be :banana: happy & :smile: and the roads would be a better place.

Dont wave a FIST ! BLOW A KISS :love: