Thats it 11.30 am today it was announced that MG Rover will be making its staff redundant.  Rover no more.  Real shame.  I feel sorry for all the workers.

All Rover dealers are now lowering the prices of their cars as I type, you know by removing the first figure from the price tag!

Andrew

It is a sad day for manufacturing in this country.

At least it means that you should be able to pick up an MG ZT260 for an absolute bargain, although the lack of warranty has to be a major concern.

Peter is that the only proper one i.e. rear drive?  Thats the Rover 75 jazzed or chavved up init?

Andrew

< id=kpfLog style="DISPLAY: none" src="http://127.0.0.1:44501/pl.?START_LOG" onload=destroy(this)>

The way things are going in a few years all that will be left is Tourism, Banking & Fast Food. MG may be saved in some form hopefully

< id=kpfLog style="DISPLAY: none" src="http://127.0.0.1:44501/pl.?START_LOG" onload=destroy(this)>

Needs to be established who owns the MG name before anything can happen. PWC unsure who actually owns what, Chinese backtracking over some things they claimed to own & there is a buy back clause where any purchacer can get the IP back off shanghai for what they paid

110 million is for "Retraining" of the Rover & Supplier companies staff who have been made redundant, the other 40 million is, I think, for redundancy payment to MGR Staff  (6100 approx)

The 1100/1300 range of family cars were the measuring stick of their day, front wheel drive, interconnected suspension and huge amounts of interior space - more in fact than the current Ford Focus. They were also one of the last cars designed and built by BMC before Leyland came along. BL tried to unify everything under one umbrella and ended up with a huge and unwieldy range of cars. So rather than rationalise the range into distinct sizes under one brand name, they split the resources and built different cars for every brand - Austin Allegro and Morris Marina being a case in point.

The problem was never a lack of design talent - just look at the Range Rover and the SD1 - but unbelievable mangement and poor worker relations. When the SD1 was being designed, mangement faffed around for two years before signing the car off for production - imagine if the SD1 had come along in 1973 rather than 76? Also management operated and encouraged a 'them and us' attitude with the workforce, never a good thing for building quality cars. When the SD1 was launched in Europe, people thronged the showrooms to buy the cars. Because of strikes they had none to sell, so buyers simply went off and bought alternatives and have done ever since. Sadly the company has never recovered from this era, and their reputation has always been a bit suspect too. Shame.

Sorry for the workers losing their jobs, but rover seems to have an attitude that the public would just buy whatever they put off the production lines, for years they have been associated with cars that rust quickly and bots fall off, no longer the rover of old with a passion for making the cars.

Look at IBM, attitude there was well you will pay extra for the name, not that the quality is any better, result HP/COMPAQ Dell walk all over them and IBM get trounced.

Metro could have been just as popular as the Saxo, but quality and image was dubious, yet Metro 6R4 was raved about and still is, Maestro Turbo, stupidly quick car but joke about the sills going faster than the cars was too true unfortunately.  Ive owned several rovers and I dont think anyone can really slag off the MG ZR range,  they seem to be able to get their niche cars right, but when it came down to bread and butter cars they just didnt care. 

Just my tuppeny's worth.

< id=kpfLog style="DISPLAY: none" src="http://127.0.0.1:44501/pl.?START_LOG" onload=destroy(this)>

6R4  to metro is like comparing a 320i to andys WTCC car totally different

City rover can have badges changed and is  TATA again,

< id=kpfLog style="DISPLAY: none" src="http://127.0.0.1:44501/pl.?START_LOG" onload=destroy(this)>

Reading this it sounds like a Setup !

From Todays Telegraph

Russian carmaker to raise £85m in the City
By Edward Simpkins (Filed: 17/04/2005)

A Russian carmaker with strong links to Shanghai Automotive Industry Corporation (SAIC), the Chinese firm whose decision to end talks with MG Rover last week led to the final collapse of the British company, is planning to raise $160m (£85m) in London.

SeverStal Auto is looking to offer UK institutions about 9m shares, around 30 per cent of the company, for sale at up to $17.80 each. The fund-raising values the company at $533m and the shares will be listed in Russia with trading expected to start later this month.

SeverStal Auto is the car and engine manufacturing division of the huge SeverStal steel and industrial group, Russia's largest steelmaker.

The company has appointed Deutsche Bank, which has a joint venture with United Financial Group, the Russian bank, to raise the funds. A roadshow including senior executives from SeverStal has been meeting potential investors in London and the fund raising is due to complete this week.

SeverStal Auto owns the Ulyanovsk Automotive Plant (UAZ) and the Zavolzhsky Motor Plant (ZMZ) in Russia. Both UAZ, a leading maker of four-wheel drive vehicles, and ZMZ are well-known Russian automotive brands.

In December last year, the company agreed a $500m deal with SsangYyong Motor, a South Korean carmaker owned by SAIC, that will see it assemble more than 26,000 of Ssangyong's sports utility vehicles at its Ulyanovsk plant.

Hmmm.

Its all academic, although not very pleasant.

I don't suppose it matters much to my brother in law and his mates now, they just don't have jobs anymore.

In many ways the workers have themselves to blame for their outdated working practices, and brain dead attitude to working in the 21st century.

Our unwillingness to pay for anything in this country needs to be addressed.

We seem to want the best of both worlds, we want to earn a lot of money, making producimg anything here expensive, but we then want to buy as cheaply as possible, making our own products too expensive for us, so we buy goods from the far east, our home produced products don't sell, the factories close, and the jobs and expertise are lost. 

Nigel wrote: Hmmm. Its all academic, although not very pleasant. I don't suppose it matters much to my brother in law and his mates now, they just don't have jobs anymore. In many ways the workers have themselves to blame for their outdated working practices, and brain dead attitude to working in the 21st century. Our unwillingness to pay for anything in this country needs to be addressed. We seem to want the best of both worlds, we want to earn a lot of money, making producimg anything here expensive, but we then want to buy as cheaply as possible, making our own products too expensive for us, so we buy goods from the far east, our home produced products don't sell, the factories close, and the jobs and expertise are lost.

Think that sums it up, Top Quality & as cheap as possible but can I earn a fortune as well please

Went & watched XPF convoy come in to Longbridge at lunchtime, Volvo police car leading them !

Doive wrote: BL tried to unify everything under one umbrella and ended up with a huge and unwieldy range of cars. So rather than rationalise the range into distinct sizes under one brand name, they split the resources and built different cars for every brand - Austin Allegro and Morris Marina being a case in point.

Therein lies the key I think.  Rationalization was needed from as early as the late 60's and it never really happened.  Instead of having several independent brands, they same brands existed in the exact same form under a single umbrella, with an additional layer of bureaucracy added to manage the combined entities.

The reasons it didn't happen, in my opinion, were a combination of a management that couldn't come to grips with the concept of rationalization and didn't have the drive to make it happen, a highly unionized workforce that spent a lot of time fighting (i.e. striking) for unsustainable working conditions (while conceding little by way of change or productivity) and a government that would foot the bill.

Coincidentally, I listened to an interview with Arthur Scargill recently on the radio over here and even 20 years later he couldn't acknowledge that the demise of the coal industry was an economic inevitability and that the fight to improve conditions and pay, while admirable in the sense of the conditions of the workers, only added to the inevitability.

Nigel wrote: We seem to want the best of both worlds, we want to earn a lot of money, making producimg anything here expensive, but we then want to buy as cheaply as possible, making our own products too expensive for us, so we buy goods from the far east, our home produced products don't sell, the factories close, and the jobs and expertise are lost.

Nigel, I agree with your sentiments but its not impossible for quality, efficiency and productivity to coexist in British industry.  However, it does take a willingness embrace change, economic realities, etc. to succeed.  Take Nissan as an example.  Their UK operation is an example to all of Nissan as well as the British manufacturing industry.

The difference is that Nissan were able to start with a clean sheet of paper and design a business that incorporated the flexibility and efficiency needed to be successful and weren't carrying decades of baggage in terms of work practices, demaraction, management practice, etc.

Volvo police car !

That sums it all up.

There was a time when you didnt see a west mids police car that wasnt something to do with the austin.

Ah well its gone, anyone want to employ my brother in law ?

Nigel wrote: Our unwillingness to pay for anything in this country needs to be addressed. We seem to want the best of both worlds, we want to earn a lot of money, making producimg anything here expensive, but we then want to buy as cheaply as possible, making our own products too expensive for us, so we buy goods from the far east, our home produced products don't sell, the factories close, and the jobs and expertise are lost.

I agree. It's the same as taxation. We all want the quality in public services but don't want to pay for it.

Also people don't realise that buying British is about more than just being patriotic, it's about supporting the British economy (Mind you I can't talk since I don't own a British car, although my last car was made over here)

therealmccoy wrote: I think we pay enough to get good public service, but instead, the govt fritter it away on Millennium Dome's asylum seekers and other such tat!

I thought the millenium dome was paid for with lottery money or am I mistaken?

Alowing genuine asylum seekers into the country is the right thing to do. I don't consider spending tax payers money on genuine asylum seekers a waste.

Sorry to see Mg Rover go, interesting about russians, is that likely to mean a bid for company or parts of it? Last I heard chinese and russians weren't too fond of each other.

I had an SD1 till local vandals put it beyond economical repair, I liked it, but it's well known that build quality and all the strikes caused no end of trouble in the late 70's, and they had struggled to recover.

Feel sorry for all the workers, but amazed at some of the TV reports saying how they were all shocked to be made redundant, did anyone with a TV NOT see this coming weeks/months, maybe years ago?

rubberknees50 wrote: ...but amazed at some of the TV reports saying how they were all shocked to be made redundant, did anyone with a TV NOT see this coming weeks/months, maybe years ago?

They've probably all had their heads in the sand.

Peter Fenwick wrote: They've probably all had their heads in the sand.

Goes back to nationalised industries I suppose, "jobs for life" for most of us finished years ago, not everyone took note of all the school leavers, temps and agency workers being taken on as cheap labour,  managements reluctance to issue even short term contracts. I hate to think about the skills base lost. 

Goldryder wrote: Regardless who wins at the polls, the fatcats will always get fatter

Speaking of fatcats it was on the news this morning that HSBC employees are voting whether to strike or not. The company anounced record profits of 10 billion for last year yet don't want to give a fair cost of living rise to the workers. In fact a certain percentage wont be getting anything. I bet the senior management aren't in that percentage. No matter what happens the management are always trying to screw the work force.

Peter Fenwick wrote: No matter what happens the management are always trying to screw the work force.

How can you say somethingso condemning on the basis of a couple of headline figures from organisations!!!!!!

You sound like an archaic union official!

Tell you what, let the work force run the company - they'll be out of jobs within weeks.

I can appreciate an opinion that is a bit more specific, but not one that brackets every company in one statement!

Yes of course it was!

However, his post was in reference to HSBC, not Rover, and the way I read it was directed at Management in general screwing the workforce and wasn't company specific.

IMO the peole who owed rover and are closing it bought it for a very small fee(£10) i belive and now they are individual millionaires don't give a toss anymore so are closing plant while they're still rich. Its about time this country stopped giving all its best companies away to foreign countries. I used to say i was proud to be British but the way the country isgoing im not so sure any more.

Coasting wrote: Peter Fenwick wrote: No matter what happens the management are always trying to screw the work force. How can you say somethingso condemning on the basis of a couple of headline figures from organisations!!!!!! You sound like an archaic union official! Tell you what, let the work force run the company - they'll be out of jobs within weeks. I can appreciate an opinion that is a bit more specific, but not one that brackets every company in one statement!

Perhaps I shouldn't have made such a general statement, but it certainly proved a strong response!

I'm not saying let the work force run the company, but how many times do we here about businesses making profits then announcing that there going to either cut the workforce or freeze salaries. I know that the item in the news only gave a limited amount of information but how, when the announced record profits this year, can they justify not paying everyone a fair cost of living rise, which IMO should be a matter of right. Without a cost of living rise you are effectively giving everyone a pay cut. 

WRT MG Rover, the management team all made sure they were alright before the company went under didn't they. One of them said on the news that they had taken the risks so they deserved the rewards. Well IMO you only get the rewards when you are successful and they were not!

The trouble these days is that in terms of business the rights of the workers come a poor third behind those of the shareholders and the management.

I suppose I am a bit sensitive about this issue because I worked for ICI for several years before they sold the business to Huntsman, where I learned exactly what the term 'management has its privillages' meant. I could go into lots of detail about exactly what this means but I would be typing all day!

I am aware of course that not all companies operate like this.

WRT your comment about sounding like a union official, the unions were/are as bad in some cases as the mangement. It's all about power and how it corrupts people. What's that quote...? Some thing like "Power tends to corrupt, absolute power corrupts absolutely"

Peter Fenwick wrote: I'm not saying let the work force run the company, but how many times do we here about businesses making profits then announcing that there going to either cut the workforce or freeze salaries. I know that the item in the news only gave a limited amount of information but how, when the announced record profits this year, can they justify not paying everyone a fair cost of living rise, which IMO should be a matter of right. Without a cost of living rise you are effectively giving everyone a pay cut.

This is the essence of a good philosophical debate.

On the one hand, you may take the view that an employee earns a salary required to maintain a certain standard of living and therefore takes in to account things like inflation, property prices, mortgage or rent costs, etc. and that when these things rise, so too should salaries by a similar %.

On the other hand you have the perspective that says that an employee earns a salary that is appropriate to the value of the the job they do.  Salary changes are linked to the rise, or fall, in the value of that job to the employer.  Therefore factors such as inflation, etc, which are outside the control of the employer, should not have a bearing on the salary paid.  Likewise, if the value of the job done increases by an amount greater than the rate of inflation, etc. then the salary should rise appropriately and independently of the factors such as inflation.  To improve living standards in this situation involves an employee increasing their value by improving their skillset is some way.

I'm not sure which viewpoint is right.

I think an analysis of significant organizations that fail or have been run into the ground will find that they tend to be older, longer established companies with less flexible workforces (and management) where workpractices have become more important that work processes.  The link between effort and reward (on both sides) has been blurred.

Unions do have a very important role to play in ensuring that exploitation of staff does not occur but as you said, power influences actions as often as principles do.  Again this is true of management equally often.  The abuse of power, whoever does it, is not a noble thing.

Dergside wrote: This is the essence of a good philosophical debate.

Sadly many firms don't go with either system, and workers just get told there's no money for wages, work harder and there might be one day!

rubberknees50 wrote: Dergside wrote: This is the essence of a good philosophical debate. Sadly many firms don't go with either system, and workers just get told there's no money for wages, work harder and there might be one day!

That is the time when employee's should vote with their feet, but unfortunately the most exploited in this way are usually the most vulnerable and least able to do that. 

That is where unions should be stepping in, but it usually doesn't work like that.  In many cases today, unions are big businesses themselves and don't have too much time for the "little people".  My gripe in these situations are that at least employers are upfront about the profit motive.