Given the recent personal attacks on the directors of MG Rover by Jim O'Donnell, managing director of BMW GB, is this a sign that that BMW are now nervous about the threat that a potentially revitalised Rover could pose to BMW?

For those of you unaware, MG Rover is on the brink of finalising a joint venture deal with China's biggest car manufacturer, Shanghai Automotive.  The deal is likely to see more than one and a half billion pounds invested in producing a new model range for Rover, aimed at producing 1 million cars for a worldwide market within the next 5 years (equal to BMW's current output).  Unlike previous investments by Western car manufacturers in China, this deal will allow for the sharing of R&D technology, placing MG Rover in potentially the strongest position of any of the Western car manufacturers in the worlds biggest potential market!

New Rover models are likely to be a world apart from the 'pipe and slippers' image they gained under BMW stewardship, instead opting for cutting edge design and technology, aimed firmly into BMW's current territory. 

Is BMW starting to get nervous that the once 'English patient' might just be returning to health and might one day be it's nemesis??

they should have never dumped Honda....

Rob Right wrote: New Rover models are likely to be a world apart from the 'pipe and slippers' image they gained under BMW stewardship, instead opting for cutting edge design and technology, aimed firmly into BMW's current territory.

now there's an inflammatory statement if ever i saw one!  factually incorrect, and laced with a tinge of... oh whats the word... jealousy?

I think he has rather a good point.

The 75 is turning into rather a good car, especially the diesel estate.

It could be an interesting few years watching rover develope, and I wish them sucess, it would be nice to see rover come good.

Yes thats the one, have a chat with Peter h, I hope it works out for them, a lot of uk jobs depend on it doing so.

BMW arent all good at the moment, they have enough work to do sorting their own models out, rather than worrying about what rover is doing, now they are trying to move into the volume market, the goal posts are moving quite a bit for them.

Rover can only go up, without closing they cant get any lower.

the pipe and slippers image wasnt foisted on them by bmw, they always had it....

consider this...

what other manufacturer can "turn themselves around" yet still attract the same clientele?

blue-rinses and old duffers, rovers staple market...

driving mgs....

why? cos they are the only ones old enough to remember mg when it was a force to be reckoned with

and thats not bs, thats fact

mgbs, midgets, all rubbish... and lets not even mention the mg current range predecessors - the metro, the maestro, and the montego... laughably terrible

years ago a company called "moto build" tuned rovers and made bodykits... back then they were laughed at... now, a "mainstream" manufacturer does the same shonky work, and is accepted as the emperors new clothes!!?

Well I wish them luck, as I come from Birmingham I have always known lots of people working at rover, and even had family working there.

I get the odd call there myself, although nothing of late.

I would love to see any British car firm take on BMW, Merc, Audi etc.

Rover Group of the early 1990's was a profitable enterprise, having overcome turbulent times in the 70's and 80's and fast gaining a strong foothold in the premium car sector (both Rover cars and Land Rover), hence BMW's interest in acquiring it.

During BMW ownership, Rover cars were prevented from competing directly with any BMW products in their poorly managed and misjudged attempts to turn Rover into a sub-brand of BMW.

Rover, now free of such shackles and collaborating with perhaps the world's most ambitious manufacturer (Shanghai Automotive has plans to produce 3.5 million cars by 2010!) is free to return to it's original brand values of producing executive cars that are exciting, innovative and cutting edge.  Look towards the TCV and Rover 75 Coupe concept cars if you wish for a taste of things to come.   

Given that Rover now have the services of one of the world's top designers in Peter Stevens and also look likely to backed by the deep pockets and financial muscle of Shanghai Automotive, it's no wonder that BMW are beginning to worry.

With Chris Bangle at the design helm of BMW, it's becoming apparent that Mr O' Donnell can see the future even if you can't!  

a secondhand rover is a far cheaper prospect than the equivalent bmw, lot of car for the money...just impossible to sell on....  maybe thats what its really down to - patriotism is fine, as long as people dont have to suffer for it

I wanted an old XJ6 jag to play with, and I couldnt find one good enough for the money I had to spend.

BMW's on the other hand are very very cheap cars second hand, especially the old 5 & 7 series, so I can have the type of car I cant really afford, for very little money, and enjoy driving it at the weekend.

I was discusing what next with Peter h on the phone tonight, and at the moment it would either be an S type Jag, or Rover 75, both much better value for £7,500 ish than the E39 beemer.

Rob Right wrote: Rover Group of the early 1990's was a profitable enterprise, having overcome turbulent times in the 70's and 80's and fast gaining a strong foothold in the premium car sector (both Rover cars and Land Rover), hence BMW's interest in acquiring it. During BMW ownership, Rover cars were prevented from competing directly with any BMW products in their poorly managed and misjudged attempts to turn Rover into a sub-brand of BMW. Rover, now free of such shackles and collaborating with perhaps the world's most ambitious manufacturer (Shanghai Automotive has plans to produce 3.5 million cars by 2010!) is free to return to it's original brand values of producing executive cars that are exciting, innovative and cutting edge.  Look towards the TCV and Rover 75 Coupe concept cars if you wish for a taste of things to come.    Given that Rover now have the services of one of the world's top designers in Peter Stevens and also look likely to backed by the deep pockets and financial muscle of Shanghai Automotive, it's no wonder that BMW are beginning to worry. With Chris Bangle at the design helm of BMW, it's becoming apparent that Mr O' Donnell can see the future even if you can't!

oh my god    stop it you're killing me!

Rob Right wrote: Rover Group of the early 1990's was a profitable enterprise, having overcome turbulent times in the 70's and 80's and fast gaining a strong foothold in the premium car sector (both Rover cars and Land Rover), hence BMW's interest in acquiring it. During BMW ownership, Rover cars were prevented from competing directly with any BMW products in their poorly managed and misjudged attempts to turn Rover into a sub-brand of BMW. Rover, now free of such shackles and collaborating with perhaps the world's most ambitious manufacturer (Shanghai Automotive has plans to produce 3.5 million cars by 2010!) is free to return to it's original brand values of producing executive cars that are exciting, innovative and cutting edge.  Look towards the TCV and Rover 75 Coupe concept cars if you wish for a taste of things to come.    Given that Rover now have the services of one of the world's top designers in Peter Stevens and also look likely to backed by the deep pockets and financial muscle of Shanghai Automotive, it's no wonder that BMW are beginning to worry. With Chris Bangle at the design helm of BMW, it's becoming apparent that Mr O' Donnell can see the future even if you can't!

and why was it a profitable enterprise in the early 1990s?

a colaboration with Honda, Honda provided the cars and expertise, Rover provided the cr@@

Nigel wrote: I wanted an old XJ6 jag to play with, and I couldnt find one good enough for the money I had to spend. BMW's on the other hand are very very cheap cars second hand, especially the old 5 & 7 series, so I can have the type of car I cant really afford, for very little money, and enjoy driving it at the weekend. I was discusing what next with Peter h on the phone tonight, and at the moment it would either be an S type Jag, or Rover 75, both much better value for £7,500 ish than the E39 beemer.

youd buy more than one rover for £7500

i'd considered a jag s-type, an xj6, an e-class merc and an audi a6, but, like the bm, they all have foibles, whether its dodgy astethics, fuel consumption, staidness or blandness

hello??!?!  a rover 827 sterling!?!?

top of the range, yeah, circa 1990

and even then it was a dated bucket

the rover 75 is a lot of car for the money

but hey guess what, <whispers> ive been told that its based on the e39

the underpinnings may be, but are bmw really going to shoot themselves in the foot by producing a car which is comparable to their own model in quality for a knockdown price?  i think not

ive seen the vw/seat comparison... vw build quality my butt

yes i have driven one

test drove a 1990 example from a local kerbside motors place in 1995, silver, all the toys you could wish for, leather, air con, cruise, lusty 2.7 engine.. just a shame it was all wrapped up in a boxy old rover 800

driving other rovers their engines were the best part, just let down by the rest of it, and the image (mini cooper excepted)

i owned a honda concerto, a rover 216 by any other name...

stephenperry wrote: the rover 75 is a lot of car for the money but hey guess what, <whispers> ive been told that its based on the e39 the underpinnings may be, but are bmw really going to shoot themselves in the foot by producing a car which is comparable to their own model in quality for a knockdown price?  i think not ive seen the vw/seat comparison... vw build quality my butt

Ah, a totally unbiased view, based on the little knowledge is dangerous theory

Most manufacturers are having problems with Quality issues, anyone reading the "M" posts would be put off buying a new one as, it seems, the engines are falling apart, Would you buy a car if the engine failed & manufacturer refused to admit issues ?

FIAT have lost over $500,000,000 so far this year,Mitsubishi are nearly bankrupt, GM & Ford shares are nearly rated as Junk, DC is in bad ways with Smart looking like it will be closed down, VAG are undergoing the 2nd major cost cutting exercise in 2 yrs to increase profit margins. makes MGR`s £70,000,000 loss seem good

Going on the time of the post looks like you are suffering from sleep depravation, or excess loopy juce or something.

 If you want to argue about something always make sure you know what you are talking about as you will end up looking more stupid than you appear

I would think all manufacturers are taking notice as the projected volumes that MGR/SAIC are talking about as the sales will come from somewhere be it Ford, GM, even DC & yes even BMW, How many of BMW`s customers have one as its the thing to be seen in "at the moment", next year could be Audi, so what will they do ? Follow the other sheep there, yes there are core enthusiasts for all marques but the majority float at the end of a couple of years

Well, this is a bit of a contentious topic!

Well here are my views on the BMW vs Rover debate.

1) The Rover 75 is a nice looking car and when the new MG V8 version gets a bit older and has depreciated a bit It will be a car that I might consider.

2) I would really like to see Rover doing well because they are a British company and If they suceed it is good for employment in this country. Also it will restore a bit of national pride.

3) When it comes to quality neither company can really hold it's head high at the moment. BMW has had some dreadfull issues in recent years (nikasil, Vanos etc etc) and my E36 is not as well built as my prevoius two cars, a Primera and a Civic. I have driven a Friends MG ZS 180 and it's build quality is just shoddy, as it was in his Rover coupe and another friends two Meastros were just woefully put together.

4) As for driving My E36 328 is a lot better to drive than an MG ZS 180 interms of driving position, steering feel and performance. The Meastro was a dreadfull car to drive.

5) If Rover does challenge BMW it will be a good thing and it might just make BMW sort out some of the quality and styling issues that are plagueing them at the moment.

As a final thought the coment that Rovers are c**p just made me think of one thing, Never under estimate the competition. How many loses in both military and comercial situations have been preceded by an arrogant belief that the opposition are so inferior that they don't pose any threat.

Although mis-reported by many sections of the press as a Chinese take-over, the plan is actually for MG Rover and SAIC to both retain their independence.

A new joint venture company would be set up to develop the new models, split 30/70 in favour of SAIC.  MGR providing the technology, SAIC providing the money.

Should SAIC wish to take control of MGR they would have to refund BMW with the £500 million soft loan provided at the time of the split, hence why a take-over is unlikey in the short term.

I'd like to see Rover survive and thrive, but the thing holding it back is not the technology, they've been starved of cash for the past few years and couldn't hope to keep up in that regard, but their ability as an organization to change and respond to the changes in the industry and the marketplace.

If you compare them to even other UK manufacturer locations such as Toyota in Derby, Nissan in Sunderland or Honda in Swindon, they don't have the labour, organization or manufacturing flexibility or structural efficiency of the others. 

They've had to get into a vicious circle of cutting prices (discounting and adding equipment and the farce of the CityRover) to make sales without being able to generate compensating savings elsewhere and so their profitability has suffered.  The main cost cutting has been to reduce R&D and so the vicious circle continues as the products get harder to justify in comparison with the alternatives. 

Structural change and an ability to see it through is what will help them survive and the lack of it is what will drive them to the wall.  Its a huge task.  BAE thought they could do it, BMW were arrogant in thinking that they could just implement the German way overnight, even Honda realized it was easier to build their own factory rather than change the Rover organization (read industrial relation issues) and unless there is a big focus on this in the new "merger" then there is little reason to think it will succeed.  Throwing money at the problem without tackling the underlying problems will only postpone the demise, in which case it would probably be kinder to put it out of its misery sooner rather than later.

As to whether it is a merger or a takeover, this could hardly be considered a combining of equals, given the dire state of finances, technology and outlook at Rover today.  National pride may not like to see it that way, given that it is almost the only British owned manufacturer today (Morgan is the only of of significance now and hardly mainstream), but if you look at this in terms of the consolidation of brands that is happening in the worldwide motor industry, then it is inevitable.

This problem isn't about cars, its about business.

My previous car was a Rover coupe turbo and it wasn't shy!! Can't say that quality was a issue, nothing fell apart, never broke down and was still going strong at 100K miles after 5 year years of ownership!!

Parents have a 75 and 400, the 75 is a better car as it is more modern. The 400 has done 150K miles with no problems, even still on the original clutch!!! I've had to change the suspension on my 328 at 60 K miles as it was ready for dropping apart, never seen so much play in a ball joint!! Other items on the BM have had to be changed due to fault or wear which the Rover hasn't had to worry about!!

I'm not slating BMW its all part of car ownership, but I think Rover do not deserve the bad press on quality or pipe and slipper image - Can't see a Grandad in my turbocharged 200bhp car!!!

Rover is the only sole British owned mass car producer left in the UK!

The 75 is 5th in the JD power survey for customer satisfaction!

The 75 was wholly designed by Rover and BMW putting their input at the end - thus BMW suspension and diesel engine. This is why some say the 75 well the sports version the ZT is better on track as the torsional rigity is stronger than the BMW. I've driven the whole MG range at Rockingham circuit and must say that the ZS is great on track and even the 1400KG ZT!!

In my local paper there was a picture of a 75 coupe, I read quite a bit of auto journels and I'd never seen it before.  Thought I'd post that because it looks pretty good.  Also buddy of mine has a ZS180 and it is as somebody said above a lot of car for the money...

http://www.webwombat.com.au/motoring/news_reports/mg-rover-75-coupe.htm - http://www.webwombat.com.au/motoring/news_reports/mg-rover-7 5-coupe.htm

 Good Post Dergside . Something else that hasnt been commented on, The chinese with their intentions to take over the World, Get a large MGR European Base, and Dealer network, + the knowhow to run it.They dont have this, so while they learn, they Can grow. BUT---

Will be interesting, reports of their contracts with other European  companies, which after investments, they decide NOT to pay any/minimal returns on and interprit agreements only to their benifit.  

some very well researched and balanced arguments for and against.

one thing does interest me though, mainly comments about how MGR surviving will be good for British employment.

Car manufacturers, like all businesses, want to keep costs to a minimum and if that means building cars in foreign climes paying monkeys peanuts then they will do so.  The mass relocation of call centres to India springs immediately to mind.

This is not a merger, it's a takeover, and I'd like to make a prediction that Longbridge will be closed by this time next year.

B 7 VP wrote: Something else that hasnt been commented on, The chinese with their intentions to take over the World, Get a large MGR European Base, and Dealer network, + the knowhow to run it.They dont have this, so while they learn, they Can grow. BUT---

Had thought about this aspect too, remember the Japanese motor industry started life building Austin 7's (I think) under license.....  If you go all the way back, you'll find this was one of the first nails in the coffin of the British motor industry. 

They didn't figure they Japanese would figure out how to do it themselves and make it better and turn the tables. 

History may be about to repeat itself.  The Chinese motor industry can't, at the moment, compete with the VW, BMW, etc. technology being used in joint venture factories there (the makers can't set up alone, has to be part of a joint venture with local partners).  This was a handicap that it took Japan years to overcome as it built up its engineering and product development skills.  Rover may be a bit behind the rest in engineering terms at the moment, but a billion quid is a cheap way of buying the 10 or 15 years of advantage that Rover in turn have over the Chinese brands.  They'll put huge numbers of engineers to work, learning what Rover have and improving it at a fraction of the cost of engineering in the rest of the world.  The university system there gives them access to huge pools of skills that may not have all the practical experience they need.

Its the next phase of asset stripping, consistent with what has been happening for the last few years.

stephenperry wrote: This is not a merger, it's a takeover, and I'd like to make a prediction that Longbridge will be closed by this time next year.

No safeway is open till late & there are a few pubs round there

On a serious note car production Will still be there in 12 Mths, rather than pre judge the situation wait to see what is announced at end of January

Goldryder wrote: This country will still hold the purse strings and this country will still have overall control of what does and does not happen.....which includes the closure of plant and the loss of employment.

Why would this be so, when MGR will only have 30%, no longer have a controlling share in the company?

stephenperry wrote: Goldryder wrote: This country will still hold the purse strings and this country will still have overall control of what does and does not happen.....which includes the closure of plant and the loss of employment. Why would this be so, when MGR will only have 30%, no longer have a controlling share in the company?

Because as has been said several times in interviews a NEW JOINT VENTURE COMPANY is being formed. THIS COMPANY will be 70% Owned by SAIC & 30% by MGR.

Longbridge will still be 100% owned by MGR & SIAC will own 100% of their existing plants in china

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000080&sid=a.3Ym361sbPU&refer=asia - http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000080&sid=a.3Y m361sbPU&refer=asia

Shanghai International Auto Corp....

"The Biggest Car Company You've Never Heard Of"

Wasn't that Daewoos tagline for rebadging old Mk2 Vauxhall Cavaliers and Astras? 

Another example of a foreign car company trying to buy into the British car market by reusing old technology wrapped up in some new badges.

They went to the wall too... 

I want to see Rover do well as they have a plant in the UK.

And I'm sick of seeing jobs exported abroad!!   Tony Blair is doing his best to ensure the entire country is on the dole forget the fudged figures.  A job working in ASDA! or a pub.  Not good enuff.  Britain can do beter than that.  Give us back our call centres for a start!!  These companies that desert the UK should be obscenly taxed 800% to teach them a lesson (HSBC one of many).  Set up camp here or else face being priced out.  Amongst many other things.. that's enough off topic for just now.

I think the original topic was about the Chinese investment worrying BM dubya!  I take it you do not then know about BMW already having a foothold in that huge market.  Unlike Rover, BMW will still own the company and were clever enough to avoid state control.

I am not super loyal to BMW if there cars suck I say so.  Look at the new 5 (I'd rather not).  Or the 7.  Chris bUngle should be shot - twice just to make sure.

I'll let the 6 pass.  The X3 belongs in the skip as does the 1 and the compact E46 is hideous.  Not sure if bungle did this but I don't care it sucks.

My point is if a car is good I will like it regardless of brand.

I hate Audi's as they are wrong wheel drive but can't help loving the RS6.

There was a point in there somewhere.

Darren

stephenperry wrote: They went to the wall too...

Ah............. That would be the great wall of China ??

Peter H wrote: stephenperry wrote: They went to the wall too...    Ah............. That would be the great wall of China ??

maybe i should have said going to the wall...

http://www.channel4.com/4car/news/news-story.jsp?news_id=10786 - http://www.channel4.com/4car/news/news-story.jsp?news_id=107 86 http://waw.wardsauto.com/ar/auto_korea_auto_sales/ -

you cant deny that Mr Great British Public demands more these days than the Nexia and Espero could provide at the time, in much the same way as the Indian-sourced CityRover is suffering now

And a 4yr old article about Daewoo is central to your point ?

 This has nothing to do with the origional question ?

there ive changed it to one thats from this year at least, and it still paints a less than rosy picture

my point is that it is an example of another company that attempted what MGR/SAIC is trying to do and failed

Peter H wrote: Have you thought about psyciatric help, this has nothing to do with the origional question as have most of your posts lately

oh im sorry, who died and made you moderator? 

and this has what to do with the original post again?  please enlighten me, im sure we'd all like to know the source of your spitefulness

Rob Right wrote: Given the recent personal attacks on the directors of MG Rover by Jim O'Donnell, managing director of BMW GB, is this a sign that that BMW are now nervous about the threat that a potentially revitalised Rover could pose to BMW? For those of you unaware, MG Rover is on the brink of finalising a joint venture deal with China's biggest car manufacturer, Shanghai Automotive.  The deal is likely to see more than one and a half billion pounds invested in producing a new model range for Rover, aimed at producing 1 million cars for a worldwide market within the next 5 years (equal to BMW's current output).  Unlike previous investments by Western car manufacturers in China, this deal will allow for the sharing of R&D technology, placing MG Rover in potentially the strongest position of any of the Western car manufacturers in the worlds biggest potential market! New Rover models are likely to be a world apart from the 'pipe and slippers' image they gained under BMW stewardship, instead opting for cutting edge design and technology, aimed firmly into BMW's current territory.  Is BMW starting to get nervous that the once 'English patient' might just be returning to health and might one day be it's nemesis??

This was the origional question, you obviously say no, other people may have opinions that differ from yours

Apologise for that, Was ment as joke,

China trying to take over the world? I thought that was what the USA was trying to do!

Longbridge closing down in 12 months? I doubt it but we should,wait and see.

MG Rover going the same way as Daewoo!! Daewoo used out dated vauxhalls. Some of the Rover range might not be cutting edge but it's hardly the same thing.

It strikes me that some people are almost wishing MGR and this new venture to fail.

Investment by a chinease company is a good thing. China is one of the fastest growing economies with a corespondingly fast growing demand for cars.

Rob Right wrote: Given the recent personal attacks on the directors of MG Rover by Jim O'Donnell, managing director of BMW GB, is this a sign that that BMW are now nervous about the threat that a potentially revitalised Rover could pose to BMW?

Going back to the very first part of the discussion.  My view is that MGR is such a long way from being a threat to BMW that it is highly unlikely that this is the basis for the comment (not being complacent in that, it will be a long time before Rover cars are back to being mentioned in the same sentence as a BMW model, at any level).

The management behind the MGR buy-out from BMW have been in the news for all the wrong reasons too often in the past few years and this is more likely to be the basis for the comments.  Remember, BMW gave MGR away with a fairly substantial dowry and alot of that has been ****** away or directed to non productive ends since then (e.g. substantial pension contributions for the most senior management).  If I was BMW I'd feel a little put out about that. 

In addition it appears that there has been significant asset disposals going on (read in the past few days about more "surplus" land disposals around Longbridge to developers) and very little is finding its way in to product development that the company needs to survive past the near term.  Could this be asset stripping?

V8 engined 75's and niche MG supercars aren't much more than PR exercises and the most that has happened to the real lifeblood of the company (25, 45 and 75 and badge variants) is mild tinkering about with non metal parts (i.e. minimum cost).  In the case of the 75 facelift, the results have been astonishingly bad and change purely for the sake of change.

For the shopfloor workers there is no option but to submit and the realization must be that in the long term the writing is on the wall.  Rolls Royces and Bentley's are being substantially made in Germany these days and soon Saab may not be building cars in their native country.  This is business without sentiment and the only value of heritage and history is its use in marketing.  Its not pretty, but its the way of the world whether we agree with it or not.

Edited to remove objectionable language, please read the forum guidelines

Dergside wrote: The management behind the MGR buy-out from BMW have been in the news for all the wrong reasons too often in the past few years and this is more likely to be the basis for the comments.  Remember, BMW gave MGR away with a fairly substantial dowry and alot of that has been ****** away or directed to non productive ends since then (e.g. substantial pension contributions for the most senior management).  If I was BMW I'd feel a little put out about that.

What right do BMW have to pass comment on anything that MGR management do?  BMW would no doubt have closed Rover down given half a chance.  It was only the cost and the potential damage inflicted on the BMW brand name that made them hand it over to Phoenix. 

This was by far the cheapest option for them - in the event of closure the Rover dealer network were likely to claim significant damages, as well as pension liabilities and redundancy payments potentially running into billions.  500 million was cheap in comparison.

BMW did very well out of Rover.  They gained the 4x4 tecnology that made the X3 and X5 possible and then sold Land Rover off for a tidy profit.  They also nicked the great icon of British motoring that was the MINI. 

Phoenix in comparison have kept MG Rover going, significantly reduced losses and kept many thousands employed against all odds.  Now that they look to have secured a deal that should see them return to prosperity it smacks of sour grapes.

One other point - projected BMW volumes for China are 50,000.  Projected MGR volumes are 800,000.  Wouldn't you be worried?

Goldryder wrote: Dergside wrote:   Rolls Royces are being substantially made in Germany erm...sorry to argue here but since when has Goodwood been in Germany, there is a state of the art factory built partially underground for environmental reasons churning out Rollers quite nicely, and they are going from strength to strength.

To quote BMW World "Final assembly occurs at the energy-efficient Goodwood factory in southern England."

One other point - projected BMW volumes for China are 50,000.  Projected MGR volumes are 800,000.  Wouldn't you be worried?

[/QUOTE]

MGR sales projections have been hopelessly optimistic since the Phoenix consortium got involved.

Don't misunderstand me here, I would dearly like to see MGR suceed and become a major force once again, but as long as they continue to bury their head in the sand about the root and extent of their problems then there will be no recovery and eventually they will be absorbed into the "merged" entity and lose their own identity.

Dergside wrote: MGR sales projections have been hopelessly optimistic since the Phoenix consortium got involved. Don't misunderstand me here, I would dearly like to see MGR suceed and become a major force once again, but as long as they continue to bury their head in the sand about the root and extent of their problems then there will be no recovery and eventually they will be absorbed into the "merged" entity and lose their own identity.

I doubt that the sales projections for china are too optomistic. The Chinese company (forgotten their name!  ) is positioning itself to take advantage of the rapidly expanding car market over there. I suspect that being based in China they will work out a lot cheaper than imported cars such as BMWs (I also wouldn't put it past the Chinese to to increase the tax on imported cars to help sales)  

As for  "merged" entity that looses it's identity? how is this any different from when GM bought Saab, or Ford bought Jaguar? Most cars companies are owned by large multinationals and most have kept their identity.

The thing we do need to worry about from China is that as they start to buy more cars they will need more petrol and hence more oil. This will put strain on the existing oil supplies and force up the price, or at least keep it at levels that it is currently at today.

Goldryder wrote: There is absolutely no reason whatsoever why the latest merger with the UK and China will not go right and in time prosper for both countries.

My sentiments exactly

Goldryder wrote: There is absolutely no reason whatsoever why the latest merger with the UK and China will not go right and in time prosper for both countries.

As it happens, I also agree, but measuring its success depends on your expectations at the start. 

If the expectation is that its a merger of equals and that there will be a significant jobs dividend, etc. on the Rover end, then I feel that those expectations won't be realized. 

Also, if there is an expectation that the success will come without some hard decisions and changes (and lets face it MGR, Rover, BL, etc. haven't been renowned for the dynamic capabilities of the organization) then, again, the expectation may not be realized.

I understand, and admire, the support that MGR have on this thread, but there has to be a realism about what the real underlying problems of MGR as an organization have.  If that isn't faced then the symptoms may be fixed, in the short term, by the merger, but not the ailment.

Peter Fenwick wrote: As for  "merged" entity that looses it's identity? how is this any different from when GM bought Saab, or Ford bought Jaguar? Most cars companies are owned by large multinationals and most have kept their identity.

Peter, that is debateable.  Many people say that Saab has lost its way in recent years, e.g. the 900 from 1993 on.  Look at the fact that in the US Scoobie estate are being rebadged as Saab - and may be sold in Europe too.  There is a very real possibility that the days Saab production in their native country are numbered.

Their badges may have survived, but in many cases the values and heritage of the brands have been diluted or abandoned as part of a large multinational.

The point is that, like it or not, this is the way the industry is going.  I admire the sense of optimism that MGR will become better and have the chance to deliver on its values and heritage, but I don't hold it.  What it will probably deliver is an increase in the number of MGR badged cars out there. 

If they do deliver the expectation of 800k cars per year, will the number built in the UK grow significantly from where they are now or will they be built in more efficient, green field factories where labour is more flexible and less costly?

I'm NOT having a pop at MGR workers, they do their jobs like I try to do mine.

Dergside wrote: [QUOTE=Peter Fenwick]   If they do deliver the expectation of 800k cars per year, will the number built in the UK grow significantly from where they are now or will they be built in more efficient, green field factories where labour is more flexible and less costly?

MGR have said production at longbridge will rise to @200K Yr