View Full Version : MG-Rover Administration / Bought by Nanjing Auto
04-07-2005, 02:06 PM
Just been announced on the BBC. The government has called in the receivers. <p> I'll keep you posted<p><A HREF="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4422705.stm" TARGET="_blank">http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4422705.stm</A><BR><BR>
<i>Modified by pcread at 2:25 PM 4/7/2005</i>
04-07-2005, 02:53 PM
hmm bad news indeed.
Just been watching the news myself and this is turning into an absolute nightmare for a lot of people. Before any comments said though, the concern mainly is the 6500 direct jobs at risk, and the 15,000 at risk when including suppliers. This would be a massive blow to the region, so hopefully for the sake of jobs this will be resolved via some sort of miracle.<p>Back to the topic though, its not actually known if the company is in administration. MGR have denied that they are in administration, and that they are talking to pricewaterhouse coopers for financial advice and guidance. Pricewaterhouse have also confirmed this as well. This would make the government massively responsible for leaking early or even false information that has ruined the company before it had a chance.<p>BUT<p>The DTI (government agency) have released a statement saying that they got their information from the main director of MG Rover, who is in china. So the question seems to be, who is speaking the truth?<p>SAIC have come in and stated that the reason they pulled out was because MG Rover could not show solvency for 2 years. The government loan had to be paid back within 6 months, but if it was extended to 2 years then there would be a chance apparantly. So once again, its hard to see where the blame is. Some theorists think SAIC will be happy with this outcome and can now purchase MG Rover assets much cheaper once they go into administration.<p>Either way, MG Rover is now in huge trouble. The end is visible for this company. Which is a crying shame because its a company i've supported for a long time, and they will continue to remain one of my favourites for the simple reason they were a true alternative to other products.<p>Cheers one more time to MGR <IMG NAME="icon" SRC="http://www.germancarfans.com/images/forums/beerchug.gif" BORDER="0"> <IMG NAME="icon" SRC="http://www.germancarfans.com/images/forums/crying.gif" BORDER="0"> <IMG NAME="icon" SRC="http://www.germancarfans.com/images/forums/crying.gif" BORDER="0">
04-08-2005, 12:18 AM
I would have honestly though MG Rover would be on the mend now...but obviously not<p>I still laugh whenever i hear about the 10 pound sale of MG Rover...
04-08-2005, 12:30 AM
Latest news from SKY news.<p>The gornvernment is providing a 40m support package to MGRover suppliers<p>Saw the breaking news and bbc newsnight last night, and it is a true tragedy for the region and the people affected.<p>But I don't think the government did anything wrong in this case. The Phoenix management should have found a majority partner long long time ago, i.e. straight after BMW sold it off.<p>Anyone knows that with a size of a company like MGRover it is impossible to churn out new models in the speed that is needed in today's fierce market, due to lack of capital.<p>Volvo AB much bigger than MGRover as a company, realised it and sold its car division to Ford, and now it is the profit machine in Ford.<p>Wasabi<p>
04-08-2005, 12:31 AM
Latest news from SKY news.<p>The gornvernment is providing a 40m support package to MG Rover suppliers<p>Saw the breaking news and bbc newsnight last night, and it is a true tragedy for the region and the people affected.<p>But I don't think the government did anything wrong in this case. The Phoenix management should have found a majority partner long long time ago, i.e. straight after BMW sold it off.<p>Anyone knows that with a size of a company like MG Rover it is impossible to churn out new models in the speed that is needed in today's fierce market, due to lack of capital.<p>Volvo AB much bigger than MG Rover as a company, realised it and sold its car division to Ford, and now it is the profit machine in Ford.<p>Wasabi
04-08-2005, 12:36 AM
AM2k - pretty disappointed and surprised that you chose to lock a three day old thread for something with more "recent" news, which at this time, is not accurate. <p>
04-08-2005, 01:51 AM
This is what Autowired commented:<br><I>AutoWired Comments: Although the Longbridge factory is open this morning - it is not working. Starved of parts from un-paid suppliers, workers will arrive with little for them to do except contemplate their future. Whilst it is unprecedented - possibly unjustifiable - for the government to have announced the premature appointment of receivers at a private company, there is little doubt that the company's late night-denial of administration amounts to little more than a technicality and that administrators, if not receivers, will be appointed some time today. 100-years of car-making at Longbridge would seem to have ended very quickly<br></I><br><A HREF="http://www.autowired.com/news/article.aspx?storyid=13716" TARGET="_blank">http://www.autowired.com/news/...13716</A><p>seems te be a pretty fair and insightful view on the thing.
04-08-2005, 04:43 AM
Latest:<br>Management, unions, and government have stated they will do everything to keep Longbridge as a 'going concern'.<br>The government has pledged 40 million pounds aid to suppliers and the opposition Conservative party has vowed to match that if elected in the upcoming election.<p>Timeline of MGRover:<br><I>May 2000: BMW sells Rover to Phoenix Venture Holdings for a symbolic 10, saving thousands of jobs<br>Nov 2001: Rover says it will spend 300m on building a new medium-sized car<br>Nov 2003: Rover stops production for three days to clear a backlog of stock<br>Oct 2004: Rover reports a 77m loss for 2003, down from a 95m loss in 2002<br>Nov 2004: Rover says it is in talks with China's Shanghai Automotive about a 1bn joint venture<br>Feb 2005: Gordon Brown discusses Rover with Chinese leaders as concerns grow that the deal may be at risk<br>Apr 2005: The government offers a 100m bridging loan to Rover amid fears that the Chinese deal may collapse<br>Talks with the Chinese end without a deal, MG Rover is on the brink</I><br>BBC
04-08-2005, 04:44 AM
It’s the end of the world as we know it<br>It’s the end of the world as we know it<br>It’s the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine<p>i just had to say it :P<br>First the Pope, then Prince Rainier of Monaco, and now MG Rover!<br>It’s the end of the world!! RUUN!!
04-08-2005, 05:05 AM
<A HREF="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4423181.stm" TARGET="_blank">http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4423181.stm</A><p>Todays the day for adminstrators. No money to pay people MG Rover people left China. <p>Going into administration once<br>Twice<br>GONE (well nearly nearly there so close...anyone got a 30p stamp to send the letter to the administrators? Anyone?
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD><i>Quote, originally posted by <b>boston</b> »</i></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">AM2k - pretty disappointed and surprised that you chose to lock a three day old thread for something with more "recent" news, which at this time, is not accurate. <p></TD></TR></TABLE><p>Before i start the news, i apologise for going off-topic. But Boston the reason i chose to carry on this new thread because it was more up to date and factual than the theories being stated in the other thread. Suffice to say thats why i kept it. <p>And please do not question my ability as a moderator in public eye. I find it quite offensive. I've sent you a private message, in reply to yours.
Latest word is that PWC (pricewaterhousecoopers) are the administrators dealing with the company.<p>Apparantly Powertrain (engine operations) has also gone the same as MGR, so this weekend should see the company making some effort to try and sort out its finances. Although suffice to say its 99.9% likely that major job losses will hapen.
04-08-2005, 06:19 AM
[QUOTE=AM2K]<p>Before i start the news, i apologise for going off-topic. But Boston the reason i chose to carry on this new thread because it was more up to date and factual than the theories being stated in the other thread. Suffice to say thats why i kept it. <p>QUOTE]<p>This thread largely makes the other totally redundant. Unless SAIC intend to buy the best bits of MGR from the receivers at a discount. Wouldn't be the first time something like that happened.
04-08-2005, 08:14 AM
This sucks. I was hoping for a day when I could buy a Rover or MG in the US, but it looks like that isn't going to happen. Too bad that it had to happen now, because most other companies are in no financial position to aide the company.
04-08-2005, 08:17 AM
AM2k, Im too hit and miss (usually the latter. If PM still been around, absolutely I would have used it.<p>I do feel for those men and women both at Longbridge, Powertrain and their suppliers, plus all the stores and other operations that rely on the money it generated.<p>
Boston, im exactly the same as you. in the end, its the employees that are the major concern. Although i dont know any people directly working at longbridge (i used to), i do have friends who have family etc working there... so it is a concern.<p>I still think this company has massive ans huge potential. From what i hear, the models under development were stunning and could have definately helped the company... some these included:<p>- MG 4x4 / SUV<br>- RD/60 (Golf / Focus rival)<br>- Rover 25 (supermini) replacement<br>- 2 aluminium bodied sportscars<p>So as you see there was the potential there.. but alas the delays to these vehicles have meant they were pushed back just that bit too far... 12/18 months wait for these was just too much to ask.<p>I still feel that the MG brand will be will continue to exist in one way or the other (either still british owned or bought by someone else). And i still hope to see it become a global force, just like the Mini is. <p>Dream over for now... but i still hope..
04-08-2005, 10:12 AM
I agree, the MG name is strong, I wonder about likely buyers....unless the administrators mess it up like they did when the took over the company that made chassis for Land Rover. Their Product in the pipeline is testament to their potential, one that we may never see. Oh for a US style Chapter 11 type Bankcruptcy where things would continue, rather than close down.
04-08-2005, 10:13 AM
yes they have new potential models but they dont have money.their engineering and capability are better than Proton but they are cashless.<br>MG Rover need cash <IMG NAME="icon" SRC="http://www.germancarfans.com/images/forums/1zhelp.gif" BORDER="0"> <p>btw, i may take over this company if the price still 10 pound.. <IMG NAME="icon" SRC="http://www.germancarfans.com/images/forums/banana.gif" BORDER="0"> <BR><BR>
<i>Modified by PlatForm at 10:35 AM 4/8/2005</i>
04-08-2005, 10:30 AM
I agree that the MG brand and name still has styrong precence and, IMO, is probably the most valuable part of the company. Noticwe however that I said the brand and name only, not any of the cars they currently produce. I wonder what a company like Mazda, Toyota or Nissan could do with a line of small and very sporty vehicles (think anything from the mini to Mazda's Miata, to BMW's Z4 and 1 series).
04-08-2005, 10:36 AM
Per BBC they don't own the plant or the MG name (BMW owns that) See below.....MG Rover isn't much more than a shell with a negative bank balance<p> <br><TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD><i>Quote »</i></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">'Little' of value left at Rover <p>As accountants prepare to sift through Rover's assets many industry commentators wonder what there is left to salvage from the stricken car maker. <br>"There isn't a lot left," Phoenix Consortium vice-chairman Peter Beale said after the group called in advisers from PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC). <p>Rover does not own the ground it builds cars on at Longbridge, having sold it off for 57m before leasing it back. <p>Nor does it own its brand name - former owner BMW kept that. <p>Even the vast number of properties it owns and rents to Rover dealerships are so heavily mortgaged that a recent attempt to sell them fell through because the offer was not enough to make it worthwhile. <p><br> There isn't really a great deal left <br>Dr Tom Donnelly, Coventry Business School <p>St Modwen Properties, which leases the Longbridge site to MG Rover, said it was "unlikely" that the site would find a buyer to keep the factory running. <p>It said redevelopment of the property seemed inevitable. St Modwen bought a 228-acre tranche of the 275 acre Longbridge site in January 2004. MG Rover pays an annual rent of 5m back to the property group. <p><br>Dwindling assets <p>While most carmakers own their own finance arm, Rover has already lost its own unit. <p>In a controversial transaction, BMW sold Rover's car finance firm MGR Capital directly to the four directors of the Phoenix consortium with the backing of a bank. <p> I don't think it is going to be sold as a going concern <br>Professor Garel Rhys, Cardiff University <p>"The parts business was sold off to Caterpillar, so they don't make any money out of their own parts," Nick Matthews industry expert at the Warwick Manufacturing Group pointed out. <p>"All the real asset value has been switched out of the manufacturing company." <p>In short, millions of pounds worth of assets have already flown the nest. <p>Dr Tom Donnelly of Coventry Business School added: "The interesting thing will be - and this is where accountants are going to have a lot of fun - is where's it all gone?" <p>Uncertain future <p>The company Rover hoped would save it from the brink, Shanghai Automotive Industry Corporation (SAIC), owns the rights to build two of its models - the Rover 25 and the Rover 75 - together with the right to build Rover engines. <p>"I don't think it is going to be sold as a going concern," said Professor Garel Rhys at the Cardiff University Business School. <p>One thing it does still own is the MG brand name. This was also due to be sold to SAIC and, priced at 50m, is one of the most valuable parts of the business. <p>The production lines themselves may attract buyers in developing countries where out-of-date models are still popular, but these will have deteriorated in value over the years. Their value is likely to be worth around 10m. <p>Another, albeit unlikely, property asset that Rover does still own is Studley Castle, a Warwickshire stately home which is used as a hotel and conference centre. This is thought to be worth about 8m. <p>It also has showrooms on Park Lane, London, and the Champs-Elysees in Paris. <p>"The Chinese have bought the K-series engine and they've already got access to some of the intellectual property," said Dr Tom Donnelly, director of the motor industry observatory at Coventry Business School. <p>"There isn't really a great deal left." </TD></TR></TABLE><br><BR><BR>
<i>Modified by Santeno at 2:28 PM 4/13/2005</i>
In regards to what MGR do / do not own..<p>From what i hear, Saic do NOT own the overall rights to the 25 and 75, but bought the rights to produce them apparantly. And word has it that they never got the production presses / tools needed for them, so thats gonna be interesting..<p>The K-Series engine range bought by saic was apparantly the older range and does not include the new range K+ range which was Euro IV compliant..<p>Which now leaves the MG Brand and also the MG SnR division (which is separate of MGR)... I could see this company definately doing well if MG was brought into this with the MGTF (which regardless of age is still a massive seller). Along with that, development of future MG Sports Cars was apparantly very nearly complete so that might be very apealing for a prospective buyer... or even Phoenix, who could carry on with just MG in a reduced capacity.
04-08-2005, 03:08 PM
The Guardian has an excellent article about where all the money has gone.<p><A HREF="http://www.guardian.co.uk/executivepay/story/0,1204,1143083,00.html" TARGET="_blank">http://www.guardian.co.uk/exec....html</A><p>It clearly shows the mismanagement of the company.<p>Wasabi<br>
The Guardian has had a huge vendetta against MG Rover for a while now. Ever since Mg Rover withdrew their advertising from the paper, they have gone on a campaign against the company. If you look into the past, they've done several damning reports like these, but then when corrected they post a tiny apology on some back-page... Its oh so obvious to see as well when compared to other media sites and sources. A crying shame because i think a positive spin from a combination of Government and Press would have seen this company survive imo...<p>Granted that the primary problem in the end was poor management, that is clear to see from anyone's point of view..<p>but i really think that some elements of the media (especially the Guardian) have helped bring down the company.. the term 'kicking a man when he's already down' springs to mind.. <IMG NAME="icon" SRC="http://www.germancarfans.com/images/forums/bangin.gif" BORDER="0">
04-09-2005, 04:51 AM
"The five directors of Phoenix Venture Holdings, MG Rover's ultimate holding company, have already received financial rewards in excess of 30m, despite the fact the car company is not expected to break even until 2005 and ran up reported operating losses of 800m in the three years to December 2002."<p>Says it all. I mean, 30m, thats 30% of the 100m they needed to bridge now, absolutely disgraceful! Talk about milking the company's assets.<p>Wasabi
04-09-2005, 06:06 AM
im so financial expert, but 30million pounds is a lot of money that could <B><I>actually</I> </B>be put to some use to help the company...<BR><BR>
<i>Modified by Hornbag at 12:12 AM 4/10/2005</i>
True it is a lot, but remember that these wage figures are for the whole board.. so its gonna be split several ways, and then divided by 5 to make an annual sum...<p>Once you do that you'll see that they were each earning wages in line with most motor executives in the industry...<p>The same applies with the pension, which is rumoured to be less than some other motoring industry figures seem to have stocked up...
04-13-2005, 05:33 AM
From Todays Daily Telegraph<p><TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD><i>Quote »</i></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">MG Rover walked away from its new-car warranty responsibilities last night, leaving up to 150,000 owners to pay for any problems with their cars.<p>Rob Hunt, of the MG Rover administrator, explained in a statement that "the company no longer has sufficient funds to reimburse warranties".<p> <br>Mounting concern: There isn't any cash to cover warranties <br>He said three-year warranties "continue in the first instance to be a matter between dealers and their customers". But he suggested that they might consider buying another warranty from "an alternative provider".<p>Normally, warranty work would be performed free by MG Rover dealers and the bill would subsequently be paid by the company, which underwrites the first two years. The third year's warranty is dealer-backed mechanical breakdown insurance cover, arranged through a third-party specialist.<p>Some 150,000 drivers who bought cars in the past two years are affected.<p>Although MG Rover has not had a particularly high level of warranty claims, it has liabilities of up to 300 million to its trade creditors.<p>Any outstanding warranty bills are therefore "simply another liability, along with all the others", said one MG Rover source, "and there isn't any cash to cover these bills".<p>Richard Cort, the chairman of the MG Rover dealer council which represents 264 dealerships, said: "I'm very disappointed, but I think the show must go on.<p>"You've got to remember that, on average, every dealer is owed 100,000 in unpaid warranty payments and sales allowances. I'd like to hold the dealer network together and make sure our customers are looked after with a third-party warranty that is as cost-effective as possible."<p>Parts and servicing for the rest of the two million or so Rover cars on the roads should continue to be supplied as normal, although no free servicing agreements will be honoured. <p>MG Rover parts are supplied by the American company Cat Logistics, which claims that the supply of parts should be safe.<p>"We have in excess of 40 million worth of MG Rover parts in stock," said John Parkinson, the chairman of Cat Logistics.<p>"We bought the business six months ago, so we were aware of the risks, but we have direct relations with over 800 suppliers and if we can't resource the part there, we'll get the tool and take it somewhere else to have it made."<p>The families of workers at MG Rover's Longbridge plant will take their concerns to Downing Street this morning. Four coaches will ferry about 200 wives and girlfriends to London, where they will deliver a letter to No 10. They will urge the Government to continue attempts to save the company and ensure generous redundancy terms.<p>The protest has been organised by Liz Hanks, 39, and Gemma Cartright, 38. <p>Mrs Hanks's husband, Phillip, who works in the paint shop at Longbridge, said his wife was angry about the way workers were treated.<p>"The wives are seeing our livelihoods go down the drain and it's not the workers' fault," said Mr Hanks, 39. "We build quality cars and know MG Rover could be back as the world's best manufacturer."<p>Thousands of workers were sent home on a week's full pay on Monday while the administrator, Price Waterhouse Coopers, worked on securing their futures with unions and Department of Trade and Industry officials.<p>PWC was only stopped from laying off 5,300 workers when the Government handed over a 6.5 million loan to pay their wages for a week, without clearing it with the European Commission. The company's position will be reviewed in a few days.<p>Tony Blair said "we just have to do whatever we can to help" save production. But City sources said the possibility of a life-saving takeover deal by China's Shanghai Automotive were remote.</TD></TR></TABLE><p><BR><BR>
<i>Modified by Santeno at 2:27 PM 4/13/2005</i>
04-13-2005, 06:02 AM
And who will buy a car with no warranty? Furthermore, every sold car MUST have by law a two years warranty, at least in Spain. Does that mean that Rover will stop selling cars here?
04-13-2005, 07:49 AM
Is this in Australia as well?
04-13-2005, 08:09 AM
Can we say screwed? I am convince that this company will be chopped up for the value of it's pices and not as a going concern. This warrny fiasco is the final deathknell in rover's reputation with consumers. I do see however someone doing with the MG brand name something like what BMW did with the Mini Name.
04-13-2005, 11:25 AM
Apparently now there is an argument over who has the rights to the Rover name. The chinese are claiming that they have the right to the name and the names of Rover's models. However BMW (who is the owner of the Brand & the Rover name, and only leased them to MG-Rover) is saying not so fast. Apparently they didn't agree to anything with SAIC. Oh boy, The plot is thickening. Here's the article from today's Autocar:<p><TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD><i>Quote »</i></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Hope for MG Rover<br>11 April 2005<p>After being drafted in by Phoenix Venture Holdings on Friday, MG Rover's administrators PricewaterhouseCoopers has estimated that the failing British car maker has been recording a £20 to £25 million loss every month. Longbridge's 6000 workers met this morning, and most have been sent home on full pay, after the government stumped up a £6.5 million loan to cover its overheads for a week. Their jobs and the future of the marque now depends on refreshed negotiations with Shanghai Automotive, which it hopes to reinitiate over the coming weeks.<p>Exactly which of MG Rover's assets remain, and which have already been sold, is currently being disputed. SAIC claims that, as part of a £67 million deal it struck with MG Rover at the end of last year, it bought rights to the Rover name, as well as to the Rover 25, 75 and to their engines. However, ownership of the Rover name remains with its former owner BMW, and it insists that, accepting MG Rover's joint ventures with SAIC, the Chinese maker has no claim to the badge.<p>According to PricewaterhouseCoopers, despite the apparent severity of MG Rover's financial plight, the maker's remaining assets and workforce provide grounds for optimism. 'We are realistic in our expectations here,' said PwC partner Tony Lomas. 'It is a really complex deal to put together and it will take some time, but we're hopeful we will get an audience to explore whether SAIC are still interested in these changed circumstances.'<p>Those altered circumstances will only devalue whatever MG Rover has left to bargain with. However, as TGWU general secretary Tony Woodley said, 'it's the only hope for 6,000 workers, and that's why we don't give up, we don't move away from an opportunity that's as yet still there.'</TD></TR></TABLE>
04-13-2005, 12:38 PM
How similar or different is this "plot" to what happened with Daewoo?<p>In any case if I was a Rover dealer I guess I would be screwed! Offering warranty even though factory wont re-imburse would be the least of my problems IMO!
04-13-2005, 02:58 PM
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD><i>Quote, originally posted by <b>Reppu</b> »</i></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">And who will buy a car with no warranty? Furthermore, every sold car MUST have by law a two years warranty, at least in Spain. Does that mean that Rover will stop selling cars here?</TD></TR></TABLE><p>Well Reppu, according to El Mundo Motor, Rover of Spain will continue to provide warranty service in Spain. <A HREF="http://elmundomotor.elmundo.es/elmundomotor/2005/04/13/usuarios/1113405638.html" TARGET="_blank">http://elmundomotor.elmundo.es....html</A> Furthermore, Rover Spain made claims that since they are an independent company from Rover UK, that they get their parts for the vehicles from Caterpillar and not Rover themselves. Interesting read. I always wanted to get a Rover, if they ever came to the states. What a shame <IMG NAME="icon" SRC="http://images.zeroforum.com/smile/emsad.gif" BORDER="0"> <p>M0L0TOV
04-13-2005, 09:39 PM
Phoenix Venture Holding is really the eye of this storm if you will. I believe it made sense for them to run MG into the ground and make money on pension funds. Perhaps I am missing something. Also there is much much more to the SAIC story than we know. At first MG Rover were going to be partners, then SAIC decided to buy MG Rover and Autocar actually ran an article stating that the deal was DONE! Now its a complete reversal...saying that only talks were ever held. Notice that all of this just came out within past month or so...usually we start to learn about company's downfall few months before things get really really bad. Maybe PVH decided to kill MG Rover once they found out that SAIC deal wasn't going as planned?
Just a quick update... but it now seems that the political aspects of the MGR row seem to be coming to the media's attention. The article below makes eye-opening reading, and certainly makes the company look like a 'puppet' in the political show:<p><TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD><i>Quote »</i></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">From Mr Henry McCubbin and Mr Ken Coates.<p> <br>Sir, By analysing the behaviour of MG Rover's management, commentators are overlooking a much bigger game of international politics which lies at the heart of MG Rover's present problems ("PwC strives to resurrect Rover deal", April 11). It is a game in which the Labour government leadership's blind allegiance to Washington has betrayed the workers at that company.<p>It is best to start the story in January this year. China had postponed an order for the Airbus A380, the joint French, German, Spanish and British venture. In light of the European Union finally starting the process to lift its embargo on Chinese trade, China lifted its restrictions on buying the Airbus.<p>Talks were progressing steadily until Condoleezza Rice, the US secretary of state, and President George W. Bush came to Europe and let it be known to Tony Blair and Jack Straw, the foreign secretary, that such talks did not have their approval. In fact, so brazen is the US at this time that Dr Rice is on record on March 20 as saying: "It is the US, not Europe, that has defended the Pacific." The indigenous peoples of that region may differ from that view of northern hemisphere generosity.<p>It became clear at the EU summit in Brussels on March 22 that, as the lifting of the embargo on China would require all 25 states to agree, Britain would effectively veto the project and, in any case, as it has the presidency of the European Council from July to December, it would keep the issue off the agenda until 2006. Without doubt this enraged the Chinese government.<p>It is no coincidence that by March 22 the UK Department of Trade and Industry had received the letter from Shanghai Automotive Industry Corporation calling the whole deal into question. The rest is an attempt at cover-up and distortion to hide where the true problem lies.<p>It lies with the relationship between the venal leadership of the Labour party and the rightwing administration in Washington. This is disaster entirely of the making of Mr Blair and Mr Straw and the workers are what they would otherwise call collateral damage.<p>Henry McCubbin Ken Coates Matlock, Derbyshire DE4 3BZ (Former Labour Members of the European Parliament)<br></TD></TR></TABLE><p><A HREF="http://news.ft.com/cms/s/f98bb354-abb9-11d9-893c-00000e2511c8.html" TARGET="_blank">http://news.ft.com/cms/s/f98bb....html</A><p><br>Suffice to say that if this was indeed the case, the Tony Blair certainly has a lot to answer for.
04-14-2005, 09:06 AM
This is precisely why I love following politics, international relationships and economics. All of the above have a tremendous affect on lives of people throughout the world. And shame on US and Bush administration. They are such hypocrites with the whole Airbus issue. They say that its wrong for EU to subsidize Airbus, well US does the same thing only more sneaky like. They do it by giving Boeing huge tax cuts, military contracts and so forth. Geez I mean only recently Boeing was given a contract despite the scandal where they were accused of spying within Langley Research. Obviously Boeing was pushing hard for China not to get Airbus from EU, and a side effect was MG Rover getting screwed over. If this is not a reason for UK people to wake up and throw that douche Blair out of office then I don't know what is!
04-14-2005, 05:37 PM
Talk about degrees of separation.......<p>China has officially pull out of the deal<p>Wonder what BMW will do with the MG name?<br>Will we see MGs coming out of their plant in SC?<br><BR><BR>
<i>Modified by boston at 3:05 AM 4/15/2005</i>
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD><i>Quote, originally posted by <b>boston</b> »</i></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Talk about degrees of separation.......<p>China has officially pull out of the deal<p>Wonder what BMW will do with the MG name?<br>Will we see MGs coming out of their plant in SC?<p><i>Modified by boston at 3:05 AM 4/15/2005</i></TD></TR></TABLE><p><br>Its rumoured about 5000 people will see their jobs cut in the next few days... <p>As for the MG name and Rover name... the Rover name is owned by BMW, who have stated that they may be willing to lease out the name to SAIC if MGR is declared insolvent. But apparantly Ford have first rights to the name, should they wish to pick it up (tied in with the old Land Rover deal)..<p>As for the MG name, BMW do NOT own it, and it is owned by Mg Rover themselves. A shock rumour going around was that Porsche had expressed interest in the MG name.. which would certainly be very interesting. Although it remains to be seen if this would come to any feasible outcome...
04-15-2005, 06:44 AM
With respect the political plot: it's well known in my business that China had an almost signed deal to buy up to 20 Airbus A380. That's a lot of money, but more than that, the aircraft is on the spot now because sell numbers are much lower than expected, and that contract would became the 'credibility' contract that would make up the minds of many other airlines to buy it as well. Therefore, Germany (40 % of Airbus) and France (other 40%), promote finishing the embargo. That's where Bush administration gets in, only to bomb the Airbus deal. For Mr.Blair it's not only the 6.000 people from MG Rover, but 25.000 people throughout Europe working in a strategic industry (also in GB, which owns 20% of Airbus as well). Now my question is, what's up with Blair and Bush, that makes >30.000 people and a strategic industry seem pointless? Will we ever know? I'm glad we had a government shift here in Spain....<p>With respect MG Rover: really, it's no surprise. A generalist brand just can't survive without merging. Maybe if the RD60 had come out when it was due to.....now they have nothing to stick to. My bet is that Mitsubishi will be next if they don't find a partner quickly.<br>
From "The Times<p><TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD><i>Quote »</i></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">End of the road as Rover rescue collapses<br>By David Charter, Philip Webster and Christine Buckley<br> <br> <br> <br>ABOUT 5,000 car workers in the West Midlands were left jobless last night after the complete collapse of MG Rover as the last hopes of a deal with a Chinese partner disappeared. <br>They will receive redundancy notices this weekend and will be told within a week about their chances of a job in other industries. It is the biggest single loss of jobs for five years. The huge Longbridge plant in Birmingham will now be mothballed with the 400-acre site probably being redeveloped. <p> <br> <br>Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, trying to soften the blow both to the area and to their election campaign, rushed to Birmingham to announce a 150 million support package for retraining, redundancy pay and helping Rovers suppliers. <p>The cost to the Government equates to 30,000 for each worker but they will receive only 7,000 to 8,000 in redundancy money. Many were worrying about how they would pay off cars bought with loans from the company. <p>The Government urged the companys directors to stump up for a trust fund to help workers families. Mr Blair spoke of his real sorrow and said that it was a desperate time for the workers and their families. <p>Mr Blair cancelled his election campaign plans and Mr Brown delayed a visit to Washington for the IMF spring meeting. The decision of the Shanghai Automotive Industry Corporation (SAIC) to pull the plug on the rescue came suddenly yesterday morning in a letter to the Government and MG Rovers administrators. <p>It meant that the slight hopes raised during the week as ministers worked with the company and admistrators to try to sell part of the company to the Chinese had been dashed. <p>Mr Brown announced a package of 60 million to help to diversify industry in the area and to support the supply chain; 50 million to fund retraining and reskilling of redundant workers; and 40 million for statutory redundancy payments. An additional 40 million, previously announced, will aid the construction of a new industrial park. <p>The Government was also in discussion with the European Union about additional help. It expects to receive 60 million from Brussels. Mr Brown said that the pension protection fund would be used and Mr Blair said that the Government was examining help over the employees cars. <p>Tony Woodley, leader of the Transport and General Workers Union, who helped the attempt to broker a deal, said: This is the bleakest day in the history of the British car industry. During the last talks we had been 20 minutes from a deal and this time we had a good plan to keep the business going. <p>Mr Woodley, who was instrumental in the rescue of the company five years ago, called on the directors to fund more help for workers. Five directors are estimated to have made about 40 million in pay and pensions. <p>He said: Ive no problems with rewards for success but this has clearly failed and it is time for them to help to give the workers enhanced redundancy payments. <p>Patricia Hewitt, the Trade and Industry Secretary, said that she hoped that the chairman John Towers and the other directors will now offer . . . to put the money that they made out of MG Rover into a trust fund or pension funds or whatever is appropriate for the workforce and their families. <p>The prospect of a rescue disappeared when a faxed letter from Chen Hong, the president of SAIC, arrived at the DTI at 7.14am yesterday, saying that it company was not interested in a joint venture involving MG Rover or Powertrain, its engine operation. <p>Mr Woodley said that SAIC had indicated that it would listen to a new plan and that the agenda of a meeting was sent to them. Martin Leach, a former head of Ford in Europe, was to have led the new venture. But the Chinese company suddenly said that it was not interested in discussions. <br> <br>SAIC said: We have been entirely consistent and we have stated to the Government that solvency at the point of signing a deal and two years thereafter has been absolutely manifest at all points. <br>The collapse of MG Rover is the biggest manufacturing catastrophe since the steelmaker Corus announced 10,000 job losses within a year five years ago. <p> <br> <br>The demise of Rover could trigger up to 20,000 job losses throughout the supply chain. <p>A statement from the four directors said: For all of us, this is a desperately sad day. Our hearts go out to all of our employees, their families and the local community at this terrible time. <p>Ms Hewitt denied that Labour was playing politics as she revealed that workers could expect an extra 3,000-4,000 in redundancy pay from the Government. <p>Michael Howard welcomed the support package. We support the decision in principle and recognise the need to help all those affected, not just those directly employed at MG Rover, but those in the dealerships and the component suppliers.<br></TD></TR></TABLE><p><TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD><i>Quote, originally posted by <b>CARSRTHEWORLD</b> »</i></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">From "The Times<p>Oh dear, i think they knew it was coming, but i rele do feel sorry for the workers there. <IMG NAME="icon" SRC="http://images.zeroforum.com/smile/emsad.gif" BORDER="0"> <IMG NAME="icon" SRC="http://images.zeroforum.com/smile/emsad.gif" BORDER="0"> <br></TD></TR></TABLE>
The worst case scenario has happened, and after so many years of struggle, its over...<p>Its such a shame that one of my favourite car companies has now finally bitten the bullet.. <p>The worst bit of all is the job losses though, and i feel very sorry for the 5000 people now without jobs. Fingers crossed they will have a future somewhere...
04-16-2005, 05:54 AM
"The worst bit of all is the job losses though, and i feel very sorry for the 5000 people now without jobs. Fingers crossed they will have a future somewhere..."<p>Don't forget thousands more at suppliers, stores around the area etc The loss of income will devastate the region, businesses, housing market etc etc. Then again, those jobs have been on life support ever since the Ryder report British Leyland - thats what 35 years ago?<p>Obituary <A HREF="http://www.austin-rover.co.uk" TARGET="_blank">http://www.austin-rover.co.uk</A>/<p>
thats a good site, you've linked there Boston. I've been reading material on there for over a year now. They have some good stories on there.. hopefully one day they'll have the true story about the end (and i've already heard some interesting tales about this saga)..
04-16-2005, 10:17 AM
From what I can understand, it seems to me that the corporate structure which originally saved MG Rover from bankruptcy in 2000 is now the very structure thats caused it's bankruptcy in 2005. Hiving off of MG Rover's assets and subsequent liabilities from the core car business in order to ensure its short term survival made sense in 2000, but as time went on, profits from these assets never flowed back into MG Rover, essentially starving it of cash and causing it to collapse. You'll notice that the parent company is still solvent, and the 'Phoenix 4' are at least 40 million better off than they were 5 years ago.
04-16-2005, 02:43 PM
<br>well... I'm sorry for sad faith of Rover, not only this grimm finale but the whole long calvary of selling it's brands away and whole slow drowning since Honda onwards... but this one nearly killed me <IMG NAME="icon" SRC="http://www.germancarfans.com/images/forums/biggrin.gif" BORDER="0"> :<p><IMG SRC="http://glambert.netcom.co.uk/personal/images/rover.gif" BORDER="0">
04-16-2005, 03:36 PM
It's in appallingly poor taste, but even as an ardent MG Rover supporter, I think that animation is quite funny..... would have been funnier if they'd used the current Rover logo though.....
04-18-2005, 08:55 AM
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD><i>Quote, originally posted by <b>MrMGMan</b> »</i></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">It's in appallingly poor taste, but even as an ardent MG Rover supporter, I think that animation is quite funny..... would have been funnier if they'd used the current Rover logo though.....</TD></TR></TABLE><p>Yes what was the point of the new badge? I didn't like it much.<p>Is it to do with the fact that BMW probably owns the rights to the image as well as the brand name? Did they want to dissociate themselves from the Rover Group to emphasise the fact that the company was now MG Rover?<p>Also my sympathies are with all those affected by the crisis at MG Rover at this difficult time.<p>Mitesh
04-19-2005, 04:37 AM
The new Rover badge was introduced on the CityRover and Streetwise late in 2003 to coincide with the brand's Centenary celebrations in 2004. <p>Shame we didn't really get to see too much of it, I actually think it looked much more modern and less fussy than the old logo did, even if the car badges they used it on were a tad cheaper and flimsier than the badges which had adorned the pre-facelift models.<p><IMG SRC="http://photos1.blogger.com/img/18/2756/1024/Rover%20-%20old%20and%20new.jpg" BORDER="0"><BR><BR>
<i>Modified by MrMGMan at 4:47 AM 4/19/2005</i>
04-19-2005, 06:24 AM
Look at it this way, anyone who bought one of those big grill high end rovers recntly will probably end up owning a highly collectible (and rare) british car. that is especially true for whoever gets their hands on the coupe version of it (there was only one that I know of, but maybe other prototypes where built.)
It would be a crying shame if the prototypes such as 75 coupe, RD60, and the MG SUV were destroyed without a trace... at least they should be put on display at the heritage musuem along with other landmark models..
04-20-2005, 08:41 AM
According to the BBC 5Live radio news, SAIC have gotten the rights to build Rover cars (in China). the 75 and 25 were specifically mentioned. <A HREF="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4464651.stm" TARGET="_blank">http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4464651.stm</A><br>Not surprised. It's cheaper for SAIC to buy the whole kit and kaboodle after bankruptcy.
04-20-2005, 08:52 AM
I haven't heard any comments regarding what Tata will do. I wonder what will happen with the CitiRover and other projects they were working on.<p>Maybe Tata can take over Rover?? That would be an interesting twist!
04-21-2005, 02:53 PM
All we know about TATA in relation to MG Rover is that the contract to build Indica's rebadged as the CityRover has been, or will shorly be terminated by MG Rover's administrators.
well, i'm personally really saddened by this, i thought rover would pull through somehow. my only hope is that someone (maybe BMW?) will resurrect the MG brand, which seems like a possibility.
04-22-2005, 04:30 AM
BMW no longer own the mg brand as far as im aware...they own rover
04-22-2005, 06:12 AM
According to <A HREF="http://www.austin-rover.co.uk" TARGET="_blank">http://www.austin-rover.co.uk</A> the owners of the existing MG-R related marque names are as follows:<p>Austin MG - Rover Group<br>Austin-Healey * - MG Rover Group (The healey names is licensed from the healey family)<br>BMC * - MG Rover Group<br>MG - MG Rover Group<br>MINI - BMW<br>Morris * - MG Rover Group<br>Princess - MG Rover Group<br>Riley - BMW<br>Rover - BMW<br>Sterling - MG Rover Group<br>Triumph - BMW<br>Vanden Plas - MG Rover Group<br>Wolseley * - MG Rover Group<p>check out the site for a further breakdown of individual model names and other technology names.
04-22-2005, 10:51 AM
Possible news of an Iranian deal, announcement may be made tomorrow:<p><A HREF="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4472939.stm" TARGET="_blank">http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4472939.stm</A><p>
04-26-2005, 12:00 PM
Here's something to make me feel even worse about the demise of MG Rover, a collection of images reportedly 'leaked' from MG Rover's design department to the UK's Autocar magazine in the wake of the company going into administration, and published in Autocar this morning.<p> <IMG SRC="http://photos1.blogger.com/img/18/2756/1024/Image6.jpg" BORDER="0"><p>I think its sad that a company with so much raw design talent was forced into administration before it had a chance of showing the world what its designers and engineers were really capable of.
04-26-2005, 12:06 PM
Is it an SUV or is the rover 45 replacement? Almost looks like a mini SUV.<p>I'm sure the designers and engineers will find new jobs else where, not right away, but eventaully. If you got talent, they will hire you.
04-26-2005, 12:11 PM
It shows the Rover and MG hatchback version of the car, and the Rover saloon, as well as two possible interior design schemes. You're right, designers with that level of talent aren't going to be jobless for long - Ford or VW could use their input in order to inject some spice and personality into the styling of their cars. It's just a shame their talents won't ever be seen gracing a car wearing a Rover badge.
04-26-2005, 02:34 PM
I cant see your picture! Can you post the link?
04-26-2005, 03:46 PM
You can see the original scans of the magazine article at the following link:<p><A HREF="http://forums.mg-rover.org/showthread.php?t=71553" TARGET="_blank">http://forums.mg-rover.org/showthread.php?t=71553</A><p>The images are posted about halfway down the first page of the thread.
04-27-2005, 02:55 PM
So what do people think of the Iranian interest in MG Rover? I wonder if it'll be another Talbot debacle. Somehow I don't see this deal happening, but you never know right? <A HREF="http://www.detnews.com/2005/autosinsider/0504/25/1auto-161329.htm" TARGET="_blank">http://www.detnews.com/2005/au...9.htm</A><p>M0L0TOV
04-28-2005, 02:54 PM
I really don't have any idea what to make of the Iranian deals that have been rumoured thus far. <B>Iran Khodro</B> and <B>SAIPA</B> were rumoured to be interested, then issued press statements denying that this was the case, then the Iranian embassy in London said that companies from Iran were interested in buying and <B>'rejuvenating'</B> MG Rover. What all of this could mean, I don't know. <p>There is one possible deal we know a little more about, and it involves <B>Dastaan</B> , a smaller, privately owned Iranian car company that wants to import up to 150,000 Rover car kits each year for assembly in Iran in a deal reportedly worth up to <B>750 million</B> a year. If they do want to import kits from Britain, rather than buying the production machinery and shipping it to Iran, there's only one possible source of kits, and that is MG Rover's mothballed plant at <B>Longbridge</B> in Birmingham.<p>Perhaps this would explain why PwC (Pricewaterhouse Cooper - the administrators) have decided to mothball Longbridge, rather than placing MG Rover into receivership and selling off the production machinery to satisfy creditors. <p> As a sidenote, its rumoured that MG Rover's engine subsidiary, <B>Powertrain</B> , is close to securing a <B>'major order'</B> that would allow it to begin trading again, and come out of administration procedures. Could this be 150,000 K-series engines a year in conjunction with a possible deal between MG Rover's administrators and Dastaan? Stranger things have happened! <IMG NAME="icon" SRC="http://www.germancarfans.com/images/forums/biggrin.gif" BORDER="0"> <p><br><BR><BR>
<i>Modified by MrMGMan at 3:01 PM 4/28/2005</i>
I do get a veryyyy bad feeling that the "massive" order for Powertrain will be engines for the SAIC based Rover 75... <p>I really do hope its not, but right now i dont see many other candidates for such a big order...
04-28-2005, 03:18 PM
SAIC haven't yet established without a shadow of doubt that they have legal title to build any Rover derived cars in China without MG Rover's authority. PwC are looking into the legality of the technology transfer and the price paid for it as we speak.<p>BMW have also intimated that SAIC would only have had full rights to the Rover name if they'd signed a joint venture agreement with MG Rover. As they failed to do so, they would have to approach BMW and negotiate a license on the name under normal commercial conditions. I don't think they're too keen on SAIC getting away with a brand and car design (the Rover 75) that BMW invested billions of 's into for the bargain price of 67 million.
True there is still the detailing over the rights to the 75 that SAIC supposedly own... and the administrators would not be investigating into these issues unless they saw a chance..<p>But i dunno... avenues of opportunity are slowly closing, but we'll see what happens in the near future. Hopefully some form of MGR will be back.
04-28-2005, 03:28 PM
Here's another possible angle to consider - MG Rover may have had no right to sell the IP rights to the 25 and 75 to a third party, as both are reliant, to varying degrees on licensed parts from other companies. The 25, although a Rover design, is still based on the R8, a car which borrowed a lot of parts from Honda, while the 75's electrical system is largely derived from BMW's own, and uses a Rover variant of BMW's Z-axle to suspend the rear.<p>MG Rover may have had every right to license the cars designs under the terms of a joint venture agreement, much like they had planned to do with the Rover brand name, but as this joint venture failed to materialise, Honda and BMW may take a very dim view of components they designed for use in Rover cars ending up in Chinese hands. I can't imagine BMW being too thrilled by the front-wheel drive version of its class leading Z-axle ending up in the hands of an emerging car maker.
04-28-2005, 04:12 PM
Look at my signature for the JC commentary.
04-28-2005, 04:54 PM
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD><i>Quote, originally posted by <b>MrMGMan</b> »</i></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">SAIC haven't yet established without a shadow of doubt that they have legal title to build any Rover derived cars in China without MG Rover's authority. PwC are looking into the legality of the technology transfer and the price paid for it as we speak.<br></TD></TR></TABLE><p>I think the Chinese will build the vehicles whether they're allowed to or not. I mean, after all, look at all the counterfeit cars in the Chinese market. What makes me wonder now is this. The deal that Ford struck with Rover is Land Rover would not produce cars, only Land Rover SUV's. So now that Rover is dead. Could we see Ford building Land Rover cars (yes, not Rover) for the market. Like maybe cars with all wheel drive or rally influenced designs. Just an idea.<p>M0L0TOV
04-28-2005, 06:06 PM
SAIC actually disengaged itself from car piracy when it sold it's 20% share in Chery Automotive, the infamous pirates of the Daewoo Matiz design. I think they would be willing to play by the rules of international copyright, providing their 67 million investment in obtaining the Rover rights was refunded in full.
04-28-2005, 09:13 PM
Aaah, thanks for the enlightenment. I had totally forgotten that SAIC divested itself from Chery. I'm still saddened to see the demise of Rover though. I hope some sort of good comes from all of this.<p>M0L0TOV
04-29-2005, 03:54 AM
Doesn't SIAC make BMW's under licence?<p>If SIAC made the 75 for the Chinese market it would go head to head with the 3er, it might even steal sales from it as they intend to make them by the truck load. <p>It's a no brainier for BMW to allow SIAC to use the Rover brand name- please just let it rest in peace!<p>Mitesh
04-29-2005, 07:27 AM
I think it's actually China Brilliance (MG Rover's first prospective Chinese partner) who make the 3-series under license for the Chinese market.<p>BMW has said if SAIC intends to use the Rover name, it will have to negotiate a commercial license on the name, and pay for it at the going rate.
04-29-2005, 10:27 AM
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD><i>Quote, originally posted by <b>MrMGMan</b> »</i></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I think it's actually China Brilliance (MG Rover's first prospective Chinese partner) who make the 3-series under license for the Chinese market.</TD></TR></TABLE><p>My mistake, you're right. SAIC is made up from so many different companies making different cars that I got a little confused!<p>I'm really worried about my next car now, I want a British car but I can't have a Rover (at least a proper one, not made in China)! Damn you BMW and SAIC!!!<p>Mitesh
05-02-2005, 05:57 AM
Powertrain makes engines for the Freelander so there is some potential for future production, but thats limited by the impending release within 12 months of a new version that will use Ford/Volvo parts exclusively. <br>Sad to note as well that there are an estimated 8500 people reliant on jobs at dealers etc etc who will lose their businesses and or jobs with the failure.<br>The UK/EEC badly needs a Chapter 11 act in place. Ford last made an appeal for this when the chassis supplier for the last gen Discovery went into administration. Land Rover now uses GKN/DANA as their chassis supplier
05-02-2005, 03:10 PM
There are now rumours circulating that Nikolai Smolenski, the rich young Russian who bought TVR for 15 million is interested in buying what remains of MG Rover. I don't put much stock in this rumour, as I don't think Smolenski has anything like the sort of financial resources required to resuscitate anything like meaningful production at Longbridge.<p>Another rumour suggests that a super rich Russian oligarch called Oleg Derispaska is sending his accountants to Longbridge tomorrow to see the extent of MG Rover's financial difficulties in a preview to a possible bid for the company. He's rumoured to have a personal fortune of 2.5 billion, and shares in business ventures running into the tens of billions, so he may have access to the sort of finance needed to resuscitate and reposition MG Rover in the marketplace, as well as modernise Longbridge, which is a rather dilapidated mess of a factory.
05-03-2005, 09:09 AM
Here is an english article from the Moscow Times which elaborates on the possible russian connection MrMGMan is talking about. They do however go out of their way to say that the finances of turning rover around are so prohibitive that it is highly unlikely that anyone could turn it around. check it out:<p><A HREF="http://www.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2005/05/03/041.html" TARGET="_blank">http://www.themoscowtimes.com/....html</A>
05-03-2005, 11:43 AM
More developments in the ongoing soap opera that is the death of MG Rover. I've learned from various sources that the final closedown date for Longbridge has been set as the 29th of July 2005, leaving a window of almost 3 months for any potential bidders to make their interests known and conclude a deal to buy what remains of MG Rover.<p>It's definitely more interesting than Eastenders or General Hospital!
05-04-2005, 11:45 AM
C'mon, why wouldn't Toyota, Honda, Renault-Nissan, PSA, or one of those companies buy the MG brand and turn it into the Alfa Romeo of Britain? It's still a pretty desireable brand, as far as I can tell here in the US.<p>Toyota could make them a sportier version of Lexus, and they have the money to update the plant. PSA need an upscale brand. Renault-Nissan are interested in Saab, but MG could work just as well. They shouldn't just be left to die along with Rover.
05-04-2005, 12:13 PM
You said the magic word... Brand. Why invest in that facilities and inherit rover's headaches, when you can buy the brand and the name, and stick them on vehicles based on your own internal designs (that can amortize costs amongst other in-house car lines)?
05-05-2005, 01:38 PM
Unfortunately, the brands and some of the cars are the only thing that can possibly be salvaged from this mess. <p>Longbridge itself is a never ending money pit than any other car company would be ill-advised to take on. The plant doesn't merely require some updating, it requires a complete refit, or more cost-effectively, to be demolished and rebuilt as a new factory.
05-06-2005, 02:42 AM
Autocar: <I>British buyers eye MG Rover. <br>A group of British businessmen, backed by money from a US investor, are said to be mounting a bid for the remains of MG Rover.</I><p><br><A HREF="http://www.autocar.co.uk/news_article.asp?na_id=214897" TARGET="_blank">http://www.autocar.co.uk/news_...14897</A><p>This is the best option IMO. Keeps it British, concentrates on the sportscars, dumps the superannuated models.
05-06-2005, 07:33 AM
Santeno has it right, better off rebuilding MG from existing product.<br>But who?<br>If Ford had the $$$ or pounds it could do well as the mass market sports car balancing out the Jag high end. But Ford downrating is going to hurt...<br>
05-06-2005, 08:53 AM
Saw this on the telly at lunchtime:<p><A HREF="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4520937.stm" TARGET="_blank">http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4520937.stm</A><p>Personally I would prefer a British buyer that could at least make MG a success, it probably would have found a good home in PAG but Ford don't have the money.<p>The Iranians plan to build cars in Longbridge for a few years and then move all manufacturing to Iran according to BBC Midlands Today.<p>Mitesh
05-12-2005, 08:06 AM
Here's another bit of info from Autoexpress, reporting about a british buyer for MG:<p><TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD><i>Quote »</i></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">MG SAVIOR?<p>Chapman Automotive Ltd is in the final stages of putting together a bid to purchase assets related to MG from the administrators of MG Rover Group Ltd and Powertrain Ltd.<br> <br>Finance for the bid - which relates only to the MG brand, the TF two-seater sports car and associated manufacturing equipment - is supported by a consortium of investors including an overseas vehicle manufacturer, a US-based investment fund and a wealthy entrepreneur. <p>The Chapman Automotive plan sees the revival of the MG TF model only and the transfer of its production from Longbridge to another facility in the West Midlands.</TD></TR></TABLE><p>Here is more of the same info from 4Car:<p><TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD><i>Quote »</i></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">NEWS: MG ROVER: BRITISH FIRM MAKES A BID<p>A British engineering consultancy, Chapman Automotive Limited, "is in the final stages of putting together a bid" for MG's assets and is in discussion with MG Rover's receivers, PricewaterhouseCoopers. In a statement released this afternoon, the firm said that its bid relates "only to the MG brand, the TF two-seater sports car and associated manufacturing equipment" and that it is supported by "a consortium of investors including an overseas vehicle manufacturer, a US-based investment fund and a wealthy entrepreneur."<p>The firm stresses, however, that its plan "sees the revival of the MG TF model only and the transfer of its production from Longbridge to another facility in the West Midlands. It does not include the MG range of saloons, hatchbacks and estate cars." <p>"It is envisaged that production will commence later this year, with sales through a revived dealer network in the UK, Europe and other right-hand drive markets. A return to the US market is predicted within the medium term." <p>Chapman Automotive's previous clients include Lotus, Proton, Lamborghini, Ford, Fiat, Iran Khodro, Kia, Tata Motors, Yulon Motors, Eicher Motors and Tianjin Motors, so it clearly has contacts in developing regions and the Far East. The company was founded by the former design director of Lotus Cars, Colin Spooner, along with consultants Colin Cushing and Barrie Wills. It says that "no further comments will be made until further notice"; watch this space for any developments. It describes its move, however, as a "MG Revival Breakthrough", so must be reasonably confident of a successful purchase.</TD></TR></TABLE><BR><BR>
<i>Modified by Santeno at 11:55 AM 5/12/2005</i>
05-20-2005, 07:34 AM
Here is an article from Auto Car outlining the 4 different bids for the parts of MGR:<p><A HREF="http://www.autocarmagazine.co.uk/News_Article.asp?NA_ID=215125" TARGET="_blank">http://www.autocarmagazine.co....15125</A>
05-20-2005, 06:11 PM
It seems that everyone has accepted that the Rover name and brand is a dead duck as far as UK sales go, so there's very little or no interest in buying that aspect of the business, while the rights to the name belong with BMW.<p>I'd prefer to see any revived MG Car Company being British owned. Bid No.2 from Powertrain sounds the most credible to me, as even if it ends up building only the MG TF and the Coup variant, thats easily enough to account for an annual output of 25,000 - putting them several leagues above the likes of Lotus, Caterham or TVR in terms of size, and probably more than enough to make sure the business is viable in the longer term.
05-30-2005, 05:08 AM
From Edmunds: another part of the Rover Saga..... Sounds like its time for an oprah style giveway. <p><br>Unwanted Rovers Collecting Rust on English Dock<p>Date Posted 05-27-2005<p>BRISTOL, England Administrators trying to find a buyer for collapsed British carmaker Rover have just been landed with another problem a shipload of 1,200 CityRover subcompacts.<p>The cars were built in India by Tata and dispatched before Rover collapsed, but by the time they arrived at Bristol Docks, the company had gone bust. Now nobody knows what to do with the cars.<p>Storage firm Walon, which runs a major car preparation facility at Bristol, has refused to accept the cars, because it won't get paid for handling them. "The cars are not our responsibility, they're the port's," said a spokesman. So the cars are stuck at the dock, still on the ship that brought them.<p>It looks like the receiver will have to accept the cars but they'll be difficult to dispose of. The CityRover was panned by critics for its poor quality, and only a few hundred have been sold in Britain.<p>Meanwhile, Tata has cancelled its agreement with Rover and is unlikely to want the shipment back in India; as European-spec, Rover-badged models, they would be unsaleable. Tata sells its own version of the car as the Tata Indica.<p>What this means to you: Misbegotten, homeless Rovers, unwanted by anyone in the worldzseems like an embodiment of the brand's final hours.<br> <IMG NAME="icon" SRC="http://www.germancarfans.com/images/forums/1orglaugh.gif" BORDER="0"> <IMG NAME="icon" SRC="http://www.germancarfans.com/images/forums/laugh2.gif" BORDER="0"> <IMG NAME="icon" SRC="http://www.germancarfans.com/images/forums/laugh2.gif" BORDER="0"> <IMG NAME="icon" SRC="http://www.germancarfans.com/images/forums/laugh2.gif" BORDER="0">
I offer £1.99 for a CityRover!<p>...Wonder if I could go down and do that, they probably do want to get rid of them, <b>BADLY!</b>
05-31-2005, 06:53 AM
<i>Modified by Santeno at 11:55 AM 5/12/2005</i>[/QUOTE]<p>Chapman Automotive is owned by the former design director from Lotus, whose name is not Chapman? I'm sure they bought the rights to the Chapman name but it sure seems to profiteer by treading on the legacy of a motorsports legend that may or may not have approved. Kinda sad... like somebody who used to work at Ferrari calling a company Enzo Consulting, somebody from Lamborghini running a company called Ferruccio Powertrains or somebody from Bugatti having a business called Ettore Motorsports... and these are all first names. Using Colin Chapman's last name seems to be pretty cheap.<p>Given that two of the principals have Colin as their first names, wouldn't it have been more appropriate to be called Colin Automotive?<br>
05-31-2005, 11:03 AM
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD><i>Quote, originally posted by <b>MOORHOUSE</b> »</i></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I offer £1.99 for a CityRover!<p>...Wonder if I could go down and do that, they probably do want to get rid of them, <b>BADLY!</b></TD></TR></TABLE><p>I suppose that Tata did get paid for them since they hadn't they would try to recover them! <IMG NAME="icon" SRC="http://www.germancarfans.com/images/forums/eek2.gif" BORDER="0">
I read in some article that quoted Tata as saying that all money for the City Rovers had been paid for, so they are MGR Property.<p>I think PWC will eventually getting round to shifting these vehicles as soon as they get the chance, because it makes financial sense. The same goes for the 9500 odd vehicles that are now starting to be sold. Should help to cover the significant debts MGR has..
06-01-2005, 05:09 AM
Yet another rumour, this one from AutoExpress<p><TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD><i>Quote, originally posted by <b>AutoExpress</b> »</i></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote"> TVR Plotting MG Takeover<br> <p>One is on the up, the other is currently down and out - but are two of the most famous sports car manufacturers in Britain about to join forces?<p>Rumours are rife that TVR bosses are poised to launch an audacious bid to take what's left of MG from the gloom of the administrator and restart production. But that's not all; the plan would see the firm quitting its seaside factory in Blackpool, Lancashire, and moving lock, stock and barrel to the mothballed Longbridge site in Birmingham.<p>The amazing story is one of several in circulation about what's going to happen to MG Rover and its axed workforce. But this prediction of the future has been given a boost in credibility from an unlikely but highly placed source. Auto Express has learned that one of the most senior people involved with the failed Midlands company has thrown his weight behind the deal. He won't go public with his views, but is understood to have first-hand evidence of the ambitious plan.<p>Also in its favour are the deep pockets of TVR's new owner, the Russian multi-millionaire businessman Nicolai Smolensky. After his surprise purchase of the sports car maker last year, he is believed to be looking for a way out of the ageing Blackpool facility to take the company forward. <p>While the Longbridge plant is celebrating its centenary this year, it's a far more modern, hi-tech operation than TVR's current home. Smolensky is said to be waiting to see how much money it will take to secure the rights to build the MG TF and buy the tooling. Neither TVR or MG Rover administrator PriceWaterhouseCoopers would comment.<p>MG and TVR have linked up before. During its nine years in production, between 1958 and 1967, TVR's Gran Tura coup was fitted with various MG engines and transmissions, with the MkIII car getting the entire MGB gearbox.<br>Paul Bailey <p> <br> </TD></TR></TABLE><p><A HREF="http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/" TARGET="_blank">http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/</A>
06-01-2005, 05:17 AM
And yet ANOTHER rumour, this time from the FT:<p><I>ARAB-FUNDED GROUP MAKES LAST-MINUTE BID FOR CARMAKER WITH HOPES TO SHOWCASE GREEN TECHNOLOGIES<br>By James Mackintosh<br>Published: June 1 2005 03:00 | Last updated: June 1 2005 03:00<p>A last-minute bid for MG Rover has been made by an Arab-funded group that hopes to revitalise the failed Birmingham carmaker and use it as a showcase for environmental technologies, writes James Mackintosh. American-Arabian Investment & Development Holding (Amar), a US-based company, has put in a 65m bid led by Krish Bhaskar, the Monaco-based head of the Motor Industry Research Unit. The bid comes as PwC, administrator of Rover, is considering a shortlist of two bids for the entire business, one Iranian and one Russian. Another four companies have said they are interested if a disagreement with Shanghai Automotive Industry Corp over ownership of car designs can be resolved. Amar said it was prepared to invest up to 1.3bn over the next three years in turning round Rover, with the funds coming from loans against fixed assets of wealthy middle eastern investors. Mr Bhaskar is looking for further funds so that 1.6bn is available to invest, with 1bn kept in reserve. He said another 400m from Amar would be allocated for two so-called "green" cars. However, Amar and Mr Bhaskar, who was once bankrupted by PwC, have yet to prove to PwC that they have the cash to back up the bid. Sven Fischer, a director of Amar, said the plan was to keep Rover for the long term and bulk it up through further purchases. "We want to enlarge this with other possible brands which might be for sale over the next couple of years," he said.</I>
06-03-2005, 09:34 AM
More info on the AMAR Bid:<p><A HREF="http://www.autocarmagazine.co.uk/News_Article.asp?NA_ID=215448" TARGET="_blank">http://www.autocarmagazine.co....15448</A>
06-03-2005, 10:16 AM
Pistonheads claims confirmation that TVR has in-fact placed a bid for MG:<p><A HREF="http://www.pistonheads.com/news/default.asp?storyId=10849" TARGET="_blank">http://www.pistonheads.com/new...10849</A>
06-19-2005, 09:51 PM
MG TF sold by mistake to SAIC.....or was it......<p> MG Rover asset 'sold by mistake'<br>Administrators for MG Rover have declined to comment on reports that the car maker has sold one of its key assets - the MG TF sports car.<p>Rover mistakenly transferred the rights to the car when it sold China's SAIC the rights to the Rover 25 and 75 last year, a Financial Times report claimed.<p>Receiver PricewaterhouseCoopers is currently investigating the legality of the 67m deal for the two Rover models.<p>The news comes ahead of Wednesday's deadline for offers for parts of Rover.<p>Assets sale<p>PwC set the 22 June deadline for selected applicants to submit their final offers for parts of the business - which is thought to include the sale of the intellectual property rights to the TF brand.<p>However, the FT report said that details of the transfer of the brand had been listed at the UK Patents Office register.<p>The FT added that a Patent's Office spokesman said any attempt to reverse the situation would require the permission of SAIC as legal owners.<p>PwC refused to comment on the report, while MG Rover was unavailable for comment.<p>However, a source close to the situation denied the brand had been sold, saying the only uncertainty surrounding the MG TF surrounded the rights to a small part of the car's engine.<p>Story from BBC NEWS:
06-23-2005, 08:39 AM
There is no such thing as a mistake when it comes to contractural dealings between the world's top tier Law Firms.<p>Her is an article that claims that Geely is now getting into the mix of bidders:<p><A HREF="http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2005-06/23/content_453866.htm" TARGET="_blank">http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/e...6.htm</A>
06-23-2005, 10:56 AM
Geely should concentrate on improving their qaulity before bidding for a company that needs MAJOR restructing to get back to glory days. Thers no way Geely is going to get the bid, well except they provide the largest amount of cash.<p>In respect to the Mistake Sale story. I agree with santeno. there's no way they could have accidentally sold that car if they didn't want to.
06-27-2005, 02:41 PM
It really does seem like every up and coming car manufacturer is sniffing around the wreckage of MG Rover - probably hoping to get access to some western style technology at a knock down price.
06-29-2005, 05:57 AM
I'm beginning to think that the only thing left are the machine tools.
06-30-2005, 07:40 PM
Does anyone know when this long-discussed sale is supposed to actually take place? Or is there no set date until everyone figures out who owns what?
07-11-2005, 10:26 AM
PWC wants the deals wrapped up in October/November. <br>Latest is that a few more white knights are falling by the wayside.
07-14-2005, 02:58 AM
<A HREF="http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/news/58369/new_75_hails_rovers_return.html" TARGET="_blank">http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/n....html</A><p>What's up with this? A new SAIC deal? I thought Rover was up for sale, this article in Autoexpress completely baffles me. Anybody know what's going on here?<p>M0L0TOV
07-14-2005, 07:08 AM
From the BBC - asset stripping.....<br>SAIC lines up MG Rover rescue bid <br>Shanghai Automotive Industry Corp (SAIC) has signed an agreement with Martin Leach, ex-head of Ford of Europe, to rescue MG Rover. <br>They say they will put in a bid to administrator PricewaterhouseCoopers to buy Rover's assets. <p>The proposal involves a substantial amount of carmaking at Longbridge and a nearby research centre for new models. <p>Nanjing Automobile of China submitted a bid to PwC on Wednesday involving carmaking at Longbridge. <p>The SAIC-Leach proposal - from bid vehicle Magma Holdings - and the Nanjing bid are likely to be the frontrunners among the expressions of interest in Rover's assets. <p>Production plan <p><br> If they don't get a deal, Rover will have to be sold off piecemeal and creditors will get virtually nothing <br>Dr Tom Donnelly, Coventry Business School <p>The SAIC-Leach plan could see the Rover 75 and sports cars built at Rover's Longbridge factory. <p>The plan would mean jobs for between 1,300 and 1,600 engineers and designers on a new technology site at Longbridge. <p>SAIC is expected to produce engines at a plant in China, using machinery from Longbridge. <p>"In terms of the creditors, I would have thought [PwC] might be as well to keep [Rover] going," Dr Tom Donnelly, director of the motor industry observatory at Coventry Business School, told the BBC's Today programme on Thursday. <p><br> Key Rover bid dates <br>8 April: Rover in administration after SAIC talks stall <br>3 May: Russians Oleg Deripaska and Nikolai Smolensky (owner of TVR) dismiss press reports of bids <br>8 May: Iranian carmakers withdraw interest, says Iran industry minister <br>13 May: PwC says it has 12 'credible' bids for parts of Rover <br>10 June: PwC says 630 firms have registered an interest in buying either part or all of Rover <br>11 July: David James withdraws plan that needs SAIC support <br>13 July: Nanjing of China submits bid to PwC <br>14 July: SAIC-Martin Leach say they plan bid for Rover <p>"If they don't get a deal, Rover will have to be sold off piecemeal and creditors will get virtually nothing." <p>Alternative plans <p>Several past attempts to rescue Rover involving SAIC have fallen through. <p>Rover collapsed in April with the loss of nearly 6,000 jobs after rescue talks with SAIC foundered. <p>Businessman David James then formed a consortium that wanted to create a new MG car firm, making cars at the Longbridge site. <p>SAIC refused to commit to the proposal - which required it to buy Rover's engine-making division Powertrain at a later stage - and Mr James withdrew it. <p>He said on Monday that his deal could only be resurrected if PwC made it clear it would not accept bids from SAIC or Nanjing for parts of Rover, or if the UK government promised to step in as a guarantor for his deal.<br>
07-15-2005, 12:24 AM
According to autoexpress, Rover might be coming back with full force with more radical 75 and continuation of the RD60 for the 45 replacment. read articles below.<p><A HREF="http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/news/58369/new_75_hails_rovers_return.html" TARGET="_blank">http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/n....html</A><br><A HREF="http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/news/58368/and_45_is_on_its_way_back_too.html" TARGET="_blank">http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/n....html</A><p><br>Lets see how the joint venture turns out first, before we start getting excited.
07-15-2005, 12:49 AM
to paraphrase Twain; "the Reports of Rover's death are greatly exaggerated"
07-15-2005, 10:55 AM
I think we should wait and see who PWC decide to sell MG Rover to before we start getting excited. After all, they might decide to sell to Nanjing, who are rumoured to be after nothing more than a 'lift and shift' of Longbridge's equipment to their own factories.<p>Of course, the logical option would be to favour any bid from SAIC in conjunction with Magma, as SAIC have stated time and again that they own the IP rights to the Rover 25, 75 and K-series engines.
07-17-2005, 05:05 AM
I read that article from autoexpress and it was farcical, what they made out to be fact sounded nothing more than fiction. Whatsmore the 45 replacement that they showed was nothing more than a photochopped Daewoo Lacetti. I really wouldn't pay too much attention to what they have reported.
07-18-2005, 09:35 AM
Looking more and more likely... <A HREF="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4693743.stm" TARGET="_blank">http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4693743.stm</A><p><I>Shanghai Automotive is understood to have finalised its bid on Monday, while Nanjing is believed to have submitted its bid last week. <p>A consortium led by businessman David James is also in talks with PwC but it is not known if it has made a bid. <p></I>
07-19-2005, 10:14 AM
From 4car.co.uk:-<p><B>Industry: MG Rover: Project Kimber: The range, the plan <br>19 Jul 05 16:09 </B><br> <br> <br>MG "Flagship" <br>The MG B could be coming back: the Project Kimber team bidding to save MG Rover has outlined its plans to relaunch MG, which include reviving some familiar model names from the past. <p>Project Kimber - named after MG's founder, Cecil Kimber - is led by "corporate doctor" David James, credited with saving the Millennium Dome. James has been making a last-minute effort to raise funding for his bid, approaching City investors this week, and he has also appealed to the Government for state aid. He has assembled a team of experienced industry professionals, including three MG Rover executives who were working for the Phoenix consortium: product development director Rob Oldaker, director of manufacturing Chris Bowen and retail operations director Guy Piganoukas. <p>James has also lined up designers, led by Gary Doy and Howard Guy of Redditch-based consultancy Design Q, which has recently worked with clients including Spyker, Virgin Atlantic (for whom they developed the upper-class cabin "beds"), Princess Yachts and Boeing. Doy and Guy are both former Jaguar employees, having worked on the last-generation XK8, XJR, S-Type and XK8; Doy also designed the still-born Jensen SV8. If the Kimber bid is accepted, Doy and Guy will be supported by recent talented Coventry University graduates Chee Kuong Siew and Matthew Humphries - the latter the designer of the Morgan Aeromax coupe. <p> <br>Restyled MG TF <br>Kimber has released computer mock-ups of its proposed new range. Besides a restyle and a 400-model limited edition of the MG TF in the short-term (Kimber notes a production capacity of 8000 TFs a year), it claims it could have a series of new models to launch at the Geneva Motor Show in spring 2007. These are the familiarly-named Midget, MG B and GT; an all-new high-performance sports car, referred to simply as "Flagship" is projected for Geneva 2008. <p>The Midget would be reborn as a Mazda MX-5 rival; Kimber reckons it could produce 22,000 a year. The B roadster and GT coupe would be pitched further upmarket - Kimber cites the BMW Z4 and Honda S2000 as rivals - and be produced in volumes of around 28,000 a year combined. The Flagship, meanwhile, would be more exclusive, with 10,000 a year made; Kimber describes it as a Porsche Boxster/Cayman rival, and "a half-price Aston Martin V8 Vantage", with target performance of 160mph and 0-60mph in around five seconds. <p>From the pictures released, all three ranges would have a nostalgic feel for the MGs of the past, though the influence of other British sports car firms such as TVR is also apparent, and the Midget looks as if it has been inspired by the Smart Roadster. Kimber calls its designs a "21st century interpretation of classic MG design cues", and says its mission is "to rebuild MG as the world's favourite 'near-premium' sports car brand." It wants its cars to have "stunning performance", but to also be affordable and economical to run. Ultimately, Kimber foresees having design studios in Turin - perhaps in partnership with the Idea consultancy, which it names in its business proposal - as well as Paris, Birmingham and Shanghai. <p> <br>MG Midget <br>Underpinning its strategy to relaunch MG is a parallel business plan which revives another name from British motoring history: Vanden Plas. This is envisaged as a contract manufacturing division along the lines of Magna Steyr and Valmet, building specialist cars for other manufacturers under contract. Kimber also alludes to "brand development in non-automotive". <p>The plan includes a return to the US market when the pound-dollar exchange rate becomes more favourable, with a projected date of 2009, though Kimber suggests that it could begin manufacturing for the US in Brazil or Mexico for an earlier relaunch Stateside. Otherwise, the plan does involve manufacturing in the UK; in its documents released so far, there is no specific mention of manufacturing in China, though it is clear that Kimber sees the Chinese market as crucially important for its success. <p>In a statement this morning, the Project Kimber team refer to their bid as an effort "to save MG Rover from falling into Chinese ownership" - i.e. that of either the Shanghai Automotive Industry Corporation or Nanjing Automotive, the other prospective buyers. Spokesman Barrie Wills added that "this is the last chance", and said that Project Kimber "is a credible, fully-funded bid with a strong management team that has varied and extensive expertise working in the motor industry. Of course there is a lot of passion involved - there has to be, especially with a marque like MG. But that is balanced by a pragmatic and realistic business plan that will see the brand develop over the years, and job development at Longbridge." <p>The Flagship:<p><IMG SRC="http://www.channel4.com/4car/media/news/03-large/kimber-mg-flagship.jpg" BORDER="0"><br><p>Restyled TF:-<p><IMG SRC="http://www.channel4.com/4car/media/news/03-large/kimber-mg-b-f3q.jpg" BORDER="0"><br><p>MG Midget:<br><IMG SRC="http://www.channel4.com/4car/media/news/03-large/kimber-mg-midget.jpg" BORDER="0"><p><br> <br>
That MG Midget looks a lot like a Smart Coupe.<br>That last one going out of production is not a good sign...<br>
07-20-2005, 01:00 AM
James proposal relies on not having or selling off Powertrain and its aging engines. Best thing about Powertrain is the engine valve technology. Be interesting to whose bid wins and what happens after that politically. <p>
07-20-2005, 09:52 AM
here is what Autoexpress is reportiong on the Nanjing proposal:<p><A HREF="http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/picture_library/dir_41/car_portal_pic_20717.jpg" TARGET="_blank">http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/p...7.jpg</A><p><A HREF="http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/picture_library/dir_41/car_portal_pic_20718.jpg" TARGET="_blank">http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/p...8.jpg</A><p><TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD><i>Quote »</i></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">NOW THE WRAPS ARE OFF NEW MGS, TOO!<br> <br>We broke the story last week and ever since our Rover exclusive has set the motoring world alight! Now, seven days later, we can reveal pictures of two new MGs. They are the work of Nanjing, which is one of three bidders vying to take over the failed Midlands-based manufacturer's vehicle and engine building equipment. <p>Designed by its advisor, automotive engineering specialist ARUP, the cars could be built in the UK in the next five years. Nanjing is in competition with Shanghai Automotive Industry Corp (SAIC), which has teamed up with ex-Ford Europe boss Martin Leach's Magma consortium, while businessman David James, saviour of the Millennium Dome, is also in the running to take over the firm. <p>The SAIC-Magma plan wants to see manufacturing return to Longbridge and the creation of a new research centre. Nanjing's proposal, meanwhile, is more likely to shift production of mainstream models to China, although the sports car division would remain in Britain. The David James bid, which needs a Government loan guarantee, plans to make the MG TF in the Midlands.</TD></TR></TABLE>
07-22-2005, 09:27 AM
On BBC radio news...sources close to Nanjing say a deal is "minutes away". more news as it breaks
A new generation for MG Rover beckons, with MG Rover being officialy bought by the chinese company Nanjing Automotive. This is an official press statement from the administrators PWC:<p><I>MG Rover Group Limited and subsidiary companies - In administration - sale of assets 22/07/2005 17:17<p>The joint administrators from PricewaterhouseCoopers have announced the sale of the assets of both MG Rover Group and its engine producer, Powertrain Limited to Nanjing Automobile (Group) Corporation. The sale concludes a three month process following the collapse of MG Rover in early April. Nanjing Automobile (Group) Corporation was one of the two Chinese groups that had planned to become joint venture partners with Phoenix Ventures, prior to the collapse of negotiations.<p>Tony Lomas, joint administrator, said:<p>In early June I reported to the creditors that there were no viable bidders for the business as a going concern. As a result, plans had been put in place for a break-up sale, unless a bidder pre-empted that process before it could be completed. SAIC had offered to buy the engine plant for relocation to China, so negotiations were underway to sell those assets separately.<p>Whilst we have been negotiating with Nanjing Automobile (Group) Corporation we have been aware of Martin Leachs interest in the car production assets, although no bid has ever been made by Mr Leach.<p>Until late last week SAIC had offered to acquire only the Powertrain assets. On Monday of this week SAIC submitted a conditional bid for all of the MG Rover and Powertrain assets. However the level and conditionality of SAICs bid left Nanjings bid as the preferred way forward.<p>Nanjing will now begin to take control of the assets and develop its plans for the future. It has indicated its intention to relocate the engine plant and some of the car production plant to China, to retain some car production plant in the UK and to develop an R&D and technical facility here in pursuit of the same global expansion ambition that it had when it joined with SAIC as the intended joint venture partners to Phoenix Venture Holdings before the collapse of MG Rover.<p>For a transition period a residual workforce will continue to be employed by MG Rover Group and Powertrain, assisting the Administrators as they have for the last three and a half months. In the meantime Nanjing Automobile (Group) Corporation intends to begin to hire staff to assist it in implementing and developing its strategy.<p>ENDS</I>
07-22-2005, 12:02 PM
so what happens to the rover models that SAIC ourchased the right to produce?
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD><i>Quote, originally posted by <b>Santeno</b> »</i></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">so what happens to the rover models that SAIC ourchased the right to produce?</TD></TR></TABLE><p>Well there are two issues with rover models. The more recent issue is that the Rover 45 / MG ZS was based upon a Honda owned platform. Honda have actually taken away the design prints, body moulds and vital production equipment, and said on record that they will not let is be used again.<p>The SAIC matter is a bit of a mixed bag, because the administrators have said that the rights matter is not such a problem and can be resolved very easily. I think there were rumblings about the rights being for a china variant only, or only for the rover model (leaving the mg variant free). But its still up in the air, and i suspect SAIC will have something to say on the issue.<p>As it is right now, all key models (25,45,75,TF) are potentially not viable for production. A lot of issues remain in this saga...
Naga Royal Guard
07-22-2005, 03:16 PM
<A HREF="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4708739.stm" TARGET="_blank">http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4708739.stm</A><p>looks like Nanjing Automotive has the highest bid
07-22-2005, 07:56 PM
Could this be another $1 sale?
07-22-2005, 10:34 PM
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD><i>Quote, originally posted by <b>Hornbag</b> »</i></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Could this be another $1 sale?</TD></TR></TABLE><p>so how much do you think the other 2(lost) companies offered? $0.25??
Nanjing bid was around 50-60 million pounds mark. And the other bids were in the same type of area (apart from david james who bid 25 million for just MG and Powertrain engines).<p>Apparantly the real cost will be starting production again, which may go up to half a billion. So a lot of investment involved here...
07-23-2005, 07:58 AM
Ease off mate <IMG NAME="icon" SRC="http://www.germancarfans.com/images/forums/bangin.gif" BORDER="0"> !!This is a very crucial step for the British car industry.MG Rover is the only remaining high-volume car maker in Britain,since Ford Europe "moved" to Germany a while back.I hope they can work something so this sacret marque can still be called British in ten years time.Fingers crossed
07-23-2005, 09:28 AM
SAIC had previously acquired the designs for the 25 and 75 and their major variants (Streetwise etc. - the 45 being based on the Honda Concerto/Rover 400 twins), although it appears MG Rover had also transferred the design of the TF. Nanjing has hired ARUP (a general engineering firm, <i>not</i> an automotive specialist) to develop new vehicles, some sketches of which had been released in relation with their bid.<br><A HREF="http://www.whatcar.com//Car/MG/18755520121.jpg" TARGET="_blank">http://www.whatcar.com//Car/MG/18755520121.jpg</A><br><A HREF="http://www.whatcar.com//Car/MG/18755520122.jpg" TARGET="_blank">http://www.whatcar.com//Car/MG/18755520122.jpg</A><br><A HREF="http://www.whatcar.com//Car/MG/18755520123.jpg" TARGET="_blank">http://www.whatcar.com//Car/MG/18755520123.jpg</A><br>BMW retained the rights to the Rover name as part of the deal to sell Land Rover to Ford, along with Triumph and Riley, and is unlikely to licence the brand to a new owner, but the assets do include MG, Austin and Wolseley, along with 10 year-old companies bearing those names. The original Standard-Triumph still exists too, but they lost the paperwork 20 years ago (is it any wonder they went bankrupt?). The other heritage companies were disguised as useless administrative entities to stop BMW from taking full advantage of their history - which backfired when BMW liquidated them all and kept the "fake" new companies.
07-23-2005, 09:55 AM
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD><i>Quote, originally posted by <b>CosworthKid</b> »</i></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Ease off mate <IMG NAME="icon" SRC="http://www.germancarfans.com/images/forums/bangin.gif" BORDER="0"> !!This is a very crucial step for the British car industry.MG Rover is the only remaining high-volume car maker in Britain,since Ford Europe "moved" to Germany a while back. </TD></TR></TABLE><p>Britain is paying for their past mistakes in this field. There's not one fully British manufacturer left.<p>However, I hope that if Rover recovers, they start making nice, good cars. If they just keep on struggling to breathe with their old models, I'd rather see it die now. BUT that's just me. On the other hand, It's never good news to see manufacturers die. <p>What I do hope is that people finally overcome with the big news that Land Rover is NOT broke, because it no longer has anything to do with Rover since a few decades ago... <IMG NAME="icon" SRC="http://www.germancarfans.com/images/forums/bangin.gif" BORDER="0">
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD><i>Quote, originally posted by <b>CosworthKid</b> »</i></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Ease off mate <IMG NAME="icon" SRC="http://www.germancarfans.com/images/forums/bangin.gif" BORDER="0"> !! </TD></TR></TABLE><p>Who should ease off, and why? <IMG NAME="icon" SRC="http://www.germancarfans.com/images/forums/nixweiss.gif" BORDER="0">
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD><i>Quote, originally posted by <b>thegriffon</b> »</i></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">SAIC had previously acquired the designs for the 25 and 75 and their major variants (Streetwise etc. - the 45 being based on the Honda Concerto/Rover 400 twins), </TD></TR></TABLE><p>There is still though a lot of question over the validity of the rights SAIC bought. The general opinion by bidders and PWC (the administrators) is that the MG variants of the 25 and 75 are still free to be produced, and that the actual rights bought be SAIC would apply to the chinese market only. <p>I have even heard inside rumours that the supposed 67 million paid to MG Rover does not cover the rights.. so its still very unclear yet.<p>I think SAIC will definately try to drag this through the courts, although thre outcome of that is uncertain.
07-23-2005, 11:46 AM
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD><i>Quote, originally posted by <b>Superfresa</b> »</i></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote"><br>What I do hope is that people finally overcome with the big news that Land Rover is NOT broke, because it no longer has anything to do with Rover since a few decades ago... </TD></TR></TABLE><p>I wonder what would have happened if Land Rover and Rover were never split up? RWD Rover V8!!! (that doesn't look like an Audi!)<p>Personally I think that moving the SD1 from Solihull to Cowley sowed the seeds of the slow demise of Rover, though they did make a few good cars.<p>Mitesh
07-23-2005, 11:56 AM
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD><i>Quote, originally posted by <b>Superfresa</b> »</i></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Britain is paying for their past mistakes in this field. There's not one fully British manufacturer left.</TD></TR></TABLE><br>What about TVR, london taxi, caterham, Morgan, & Bristol?
07-23-2005, 01:00 PM
TVR is owned by a Russian. Morgan and Bristol make so few cars a year it is hard to count them as major players. LTI is a true UK company that does make a decent amount of product, but I would still call them a niche maker - the amount of people driving them as personal cars (not as taxis) has to be less than the amount of half-timebered Morgans sold each year.
Companies like Noble, Bristol and Morgan will be in essence the 'true' british niche car makers now..<p>But in my eyes, companies like Jaguar, Land Rover and MG Rover are still british car makers. Although the finance may be from elsewhere, the designs are british, the world renowned engineers are british, and as of yet the production is still in the UK (although it remains to be seen what at of MG Rover will be produced in china).
07-23-2005, 01:37 PM
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD><i>Quote, originally posted by <b>Santeno</b> »</i></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote"><br>What about TVR, london taxi, caterham, Morgan, & Bristol?</TD></TR></TABLE><p>Yes but they are small production, unknown vehicles really... <p><TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD><i>Quote, originally posted by <b>AM2K</b> »</i></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Companies like Noble, Bristol and Morgan will be in essence the 'true' british niche car makers now..<p>But in my eyes, companies like Jaguar, Land Rover and MG Rover are still british car makers. Although the finance may be from elsewhere, the designs are british, the world renowned engineers are british, and as of yet the production is still in the UK (although it remains to be seen what at of MG Rover will be produced in china).</TD></TR></TABLE><p>Yes, I agree with this, and it's what I mean. Although small manufacturers still exist, Its these cars above the ones you'd think of when you think about British cars...
07-23-2005, 05:55 PM
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD><i>Quote, originally posted by <b>syclone</b> »</i></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">TVR is owned by a Russian.</TD></TR></TABLE><br>TVR is owned by a British citizen who also happens to be a russian one. The company however, remains british in all aspects (research, design, manufacturing, management and operations). Unlike companies like Lotus or Jaguar, no part of TVR is foreign, nor is the company operated from anywhere else but brittain. Regardless of the asendancy of the owner, TVR is still very much a british company.
07-24-2005, 12:44 AM
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD><i>Quote, originally posted by <b>HondaTech</b> »</i></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote"><p>so how much do you think the other 2(lost) companies offered? $0.25??</TD></TR></TABLE><p>Yep <IMG NAME="icon" SRC="http://www.germancarfans.com/images/forums/biggrin.gif" BORDER="0">
07-24-2005, 10:45 AM
To whoever asked me:<br>Ease off mate !! <p>Who should ease off, and why? <br> I was replying to my friend Hornbag,lol.<p>I'd also like to say that i do agree with the fact that people should stop saying that Land Rover is going broke!For pits sake,Land Rover is going from strength to strength.The Range Rover is a huge seller around the world,even outselling lasting premium icons such as the S-Class and 7-Series in my country.The new Disco/LR3 is doing great too and many other products will follow.<br>Also this is a personal thought that i'd like to voice since the Land Rover thing came up:a lot of people keep complaining about companies such as Ford for buying other brands and "ruining" them or "failing to do them justice".WHY??Land Rover has become a huge premium power,Volvo has turned from "just reliable" to "damn hot!",Mazda is doing terrific,Aston Martin is fantastic.e.t.c.Maybe Jaguar hasnt been profitable yet but just be patient people,9/10 aint bad!This could also help a struggling company such as MG Rover.And you may call me narrow minded or racist(i am not) but i'd much rather Ford or VW take over Rover than some Chinese company that probably will let it die anyway.I know that other big names didnt opt to buy Rover but still...i wish they had <IMG NAME="icon" SRC="http://www.germancarfans.com/images/forums/1zhelp.gif" BORDER="0">
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD><i>Quote, originally posted by <b>CosworthKid</b> »</i></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">To whoever asked me:<br>Ease off mate !! <p>Who should ease off, and why? <br> I was replying to my friend Hornbag,lol.<br></TD></TR></TABLE><p>Ah ok, did not understand where u were coming from. <IMG NAME="icon" SRC="http://www.germancarfans.com/images/forums/beerchug.gif" BORDER="0"> <p>You're definately right about LR, they are doing very well right now. Just a shame that jag is dragging them and the rest of PAG down..<p>Its a real shame though my dream of Ford getting MG didnt happen. I really think they would be brilliant when paired with Jaguar and Land Rover. I know for a fact that a lot of the engineers and designers at LR still have a soft spot for MG because it was their old company. With the right resources, the company had so much potential.<p>Guess we'll have to see what Nanjing have planned..
07-24-2005, 02:09 PM
Yeah,Ford would have done a decent job with Rover.Still i dont blame them for backing up though.Ford has some great financial problems of its own,regardless of the fact it helped rejuvinate(is that spelt rigtht?)other marques.Plus people blame Ford for Jaguar now,imagine what they would do if something went wrong with Rover!Too great a risk
07-24-2005, 09:20 PM
I gave all of this a good thought, and I think that nothing could've been better than the Chinese group buying Rover. <p>Chinese auto industry can be comparable to that of Japans, only a few decades ago. Nobody cared for Japanese cars, they lacked quality, they were boring, they were unreliable... Japanese car industry grew out of that at a breakneck speed and nowadays, Japanese cars stand for reliability, and are generally speaking excelent cars.<p>Now chinese auto industry is trying to come afloat. We have seen in this forum many new Chinese cars, ususally Japanese copies, make their way into production. China wants to do a lot better than that, i'm sure, but there is no chinese factory that has a name for making automobiles (and you wouldn't buy a car with a brand that appeared yesterday, would you...). If they can use the MG & Rover name, their efforts and their will to become good automakers, their industrial growth properly, I would bet money eyes closed, that in 10 years time, many of us might be considering a chinese produst alongside with a Japanese one and a european one for our next car purchase.<p><br>Just wait and see China take speed no in the automotive area <IMG NAME="icon" SRC="http://www.germancarfans.com/images/forums/beerchug.gif" BORDER="0">
07-24-2005, 11:01 PM
The chinese make pretty much everything else, so why not cars. I'm just glad it wasn't SAIC that got the prize, after their tactics helped put MGR in this position. If it was their intention to push Rover over the edge, so they could pick up the assets at firesale prices, then it has failed.
07-25-2005, 02:10 AM
Funny you should say that about Japanese car industry Superfresa, since that industry was reborn on the back of English brands in the Post WW2 era
07-25-2005, 03:29 AM
and the German automotive industy was saved by the Brits at the same time. <p>Form a sentence using these words: Rod, back, own, making.
07-25-2005, 06:52 AM
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD><i>Quote, originally posted by <b>boston</b> »</i></TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Funny you should say that about Japanese car industry Superfresa, since that industry was reborn on the back of English brands in the Post WW2 era</TD></TR></TABLE><p>Exactly! And back then they had the same kind of reputation that Chinese auto industry has today....<p>Imagine Rover/MG in a few years, selling maybe like Honda... Sounds good huh?
07-25-2005, 07:56 AM
And MG makes a return to the US Market.....
08-03-2005, 12:23 PM
<A HREF="http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/news/58874/exrover_bosses_back_on_board_with_nanjing.html" TARGET="_blank">http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/n....html</A><p>Say it ain't so?!?!?! I really hope this is just an unconfirmed rumor. If this is the case, I'm getting a very sick feeling about this. I just get angry reading that. Grr.<p>M0L0TOV
08-19-2005, 07:00 AM
Rover owner poaches Chinese chefs<br>The firm which bought MG Rover has brought in chefs from China to run the canteen at its Longbridge factory.<p>Nanjing Automotive opted for foreign talent after reportedly expressing dissatisfaction with the quality of home grown food such as sandwiches.<p>Typical British fare would still be available, the BBC was told.<p>Nanjing bought the collapsed carmaker for 53m earlier this year and plans to resume production of MG sports cars and other models at Longbridge.<p>'Proper food'<p>Prior to buying Rover, Nanjing said that it may hire up to 2,000 staff to work at Longbridge and other factories in the Midlands.<p>The Financial Times reported that Nanjing had drafted in five Chinese cooks to reopen the works canteen after being unimpressed with the general standard of British food.<p>"They don't regard sandwiches as proper food and they didn't like the Chinese restaurants over here," a Briton involved with the negotiations told the newspaper.<p> To draw conclusions about the company's strategic intentions for Longbridge based on the arrival of a few chefs from China is tenuous<br>A source close to Nanjing<p>A source close to Nanjing told the BBC that bringing in foreign chefs should not be misinterpreted and does not give any indication about the firm's intentions for car production or how many local staff it would hire.<p>"To draw conclusions about the company's strategic intentions for Longbridge based on the arrival of a few chefs from China is tenuous to say the least," he said.<p>"The detailed work of preparing a business plan for a viable UK business is well underway."<p>Nanjing hopes to team up with GB Sports Car, a new venture set up by former Rover executives, to build a range of MG models.<p>However, discussions over the development of a business plan are believed to be at a relatively early stage.
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.