Well not how we would have like it but at least they will keep jobs in Longbridge, supposedly
Link:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4708739.stm
Prehaps now they will get some "new" designed cars at last
Rover MG Saved
Good news. Now they just to give as many former MG Rover employees first refusal on employment as possible.
I have to say, it doesn't actually sound that great. The only big news here is that some sort of manufacture might continue at the Longbridge site - but it certainly won't be true British car manufacturing as was going on until earlier this year.
Beyond that, it sounds like what we always knew as being inevitable anyway - that the MG marque would live on, but with foreign ownership interests and could quite well be applied to foreign cars (beyond the old MG ZS which was already just a rebadged Honda), whilst the Rover brand itself, which is still owned by BMW and thus would not be included in any sale of MG Rover's assets looks less certain, although it appeared that the Rover 75 would continue in production (albeit not necessarily under the same name) after it and the K-series engine platform were sold to SAIC about a year ago.
What distresses me the most however is that all parties interested seem to want to restart production of the then existing model lineup at the time MGR collapsed - which would be suicide. The Rover 25/MG ZR (and the ultimate vomit-inducing tacky version that is the Rover Streetwise with it's oversized black plastic mouldings) is really a light refresh of the Rover 200 MKIII - a 10 year old design, the Rover 45/MG ZS is a rebadging of the old Honda Civic, whilst the Rover 75/MG ZT, despite being the newest homegrown design they have, is still 6 years old and borrowed so many styling queues from old Jaguars that it looks even older than that.
The only genuinely new model to enter the Rover stable in recent years has been the CityRover - which itself is merely a rebadged Tata Indica (an obscure Indian car) which is certainly not a new design.
Any rescue package for Rover needs to decide at an early stage whether or not they want to continue with two brand names (I'd imagine that Rover will be dropped whilst MG will continue since MG is actually included in the sale of MGR), if they decide to drop one then make a clean break (so no brand new MG lineup of cars sold alongside the Rover 75) or to support them both well (again, so new brand new MG lineup of cars sold alongside the Rover 75), and when relaunching the marque(s), to come up with something new and unique to sell them under - not persuing yet further reworkings of tired old models which should have been put to bed years ago, or badge engineering vehicles from other manufacturers to create the illusion of a new range.
If Rover is going to be saved after all, lets see it truly saved this time, not see it merely given another stay of execution without poor implementation of a weak model lineup allowed to take over again.
Beyond that, it sounds like what we always knew as being inevitable anyway - that the MG marque would live on, but with foreign ownership interests and could quite well be applied to foreign cars (beyond the old MG ZS which was already just a rebadged Honda), whilst the Rover brand itself, which is still owned by BMW and thus would not be included in any sale of MG Rover's assets looks less certain, although it appeared that the Rover 75 would continue in production (albeit not necessarily under the same name) after it and the K-series engine platform were sold to SAIC about a year ago.
What distresses me the most however is that all parties interested seem to want to restart production of the then existing model lineup at the time MGR collapsed - which would be suicide. The Rover 25/MG ZR (and the ultimate vomit-inducing tacky version that is the Rover Streetwise with it's oversized black plastic mouldings) is really a light refresh of the Rover 200 MKIII - a 10 year old design, the Rover 45/MG ZS is a rebadging of the old Honda Civic, whilst the Rover 75/MG ZT, despite being the newest homegrown design they have, is still 6 years old and borrowed so many styling queues from old Jaguars that it looks even older than that.
The only genuinely new model to enter the Rover stable in recent years has been the CityRover - which itself is merely a rebadged Tata Indica (an obscure Indian car) which is certainly not a new design.
Any rescue package for Rover needs to decide at an early stage whether or not they want to continue with two brand names (I'd imagine that Rover will be dropped whilst MG will continue since MG is actually included in the sale of MGR), if they decide to drop one then make a clean break (so no brand new MG lineup of cars sold alongside the Rover 75) or to support them both well (again, so new brand new MG lineup of cars sold alongside the Rover 75), and when relaunching the marque(s), to come up with something new and unique to sell them under - not persuing yet further reworkings of tired old models which should have been put to bed years ago, or badge engineering vehicles from other manufacturers to create the illusion of a new range.
If Rover is going to be saved after all, lets see it truly saved this time, not see it merely given another stay of execution without poor implementation of a weak model lineup allowed to take over again.
As I understand it - and I'm sure more knowledgeable persons will correct any errors - Nanjing's intention is to build cars in the West Midlands (almost certainly, though not definitely, at Longbridge). SAIC ows the rights to the Rover 25/MG ZR/Streetwise, the Rover 75/MG ZT and the Rover 75 Tourer/MG ZT-T, as well as the K-series engine. Although the sale to Nanjing includes Powertrain, the engine development and manufacture subsidiary of MGR, the rights to this particular engine were included in those rights transferred to SAIC.
Additionally, Honda has recently rescinded its permissions for the design and technology rights that permit the construction and development of the Rover 45/MG ZS; even though this car had been substantially redeveloped over the year since it was virtually identical to the Honda Civic (when it used to be the Rover 400), a surprising - and worrying - percentage of the car remained reliant on designs and patents owned exclusively by Honda. Honda has asserted its rights to those properties, and thus they are currently no longer available to MG Rover's new owners, unless a new deal can be established.
Therefore, the only vehicle immediately available to build is the CityRover, and Nanjing's own portfolio of designs.
It is correct that BMW retains ownership of the Rover marque, and industry rumours suggest that they are likely to agree a licensing deal for its use to SAIC within the next few weeks. This is not a major issue for Nanjing at least, as it is their intention to manufacture and sell vehicles in the UK exclusively under the MG marque. They plan to export MG vehicles too, but interestingly, they also intend to develop some of the other brands remaining under MG Rover which BMW didn't strip out along with one or two other choice assets at the time of sale.
BMW obviously reaped the rewards of keeping the MINI brand and the prestigious Land Rover marque (which it later sold to Ford for a tidy sum), but a cluster of brands from yesteryear remain in the Rover fold, including such once-proud names as Austin and Wolseley. It is these in particular that Nanjing intends to exploit internationally (at first) with Austin likely being used to market family cars - given the loss of the Rover marque. Wolseley is extremely likely to debut in China itself as a luxury brand which would then proliferate internationally depending upon its own national success. Nanjing is currently a very small player in the car industry, so this kind of international strategy with its newly-acquired assets makes reasonably good sense.
No, this isn't the best possible outcome, but it is certainly an extremely positive one given the rather bleak outlook for the company in recent weeks, and I'm sure the hundreds of workers whose jobs have been saved will agree. Granted, those whose jobs remain lost will be less likely to celebrate, but MG Rover was unsustainable under its previous structure. It stretched itself too far too quickly, and was far too bloated given its financial situation and its own standing in the broader industry. Massive redundancies and substantial restructuring would have been necessary to safeguard the company's future anyway, and sadly it was only the blind pride and arrogance of the managers who believed that they could actually survive as a "mass" manufacturer despite being barely a tadpole in an ocean, and that nothing could sink Rover, that ultimately slammed the final nail into the coffin.
Things could certainly be better now, but we should console ourselves with the knowledge that they could be far, far worse.
Additionally, Honda has recently rescinded its permissions for the design and technology rights that permit the construction and development of the Rover 45/MG ZS; even though this car had been substantially redeveloped over the year since it was virtually identical to the Honda Civic (when it used to be the Rover 400), a surprising - and worrying - percentage of the car remained reliant on designs and patents owned exclusively by Honda. Honda has asserted its rights to those properties, and thus they are currently no longer available to MG Rover's new owners, unless a new deal can be established.
Therefore, the only vehicle immediately available to build is the CityRover, and Nanjing's own portfolio of designs.
It is correct that BMW retains ownership of the Rover marque, and industry rumours suggest that they are likely to agree a licensing deal for its use to SAIC within the next few weeks. This is not a major issue for Nanjing at least, as it is their intention to manufacture and sell vehicles in the UK exclusively under the MG marque. They plan to export MG vehicles too, but interestingly, they also intend to develop some of the other brands remaining under MG Rover which BMW didn't strip out along with one or two other choice assets at the time of sale.
BMW obviously reaped the rewards of keeping the MINI brand and the prestigious Land Rover marque (which it later sold to Ford for a tidy sum), but a cluster of brands from yesteryear remain in the Rover fold, including such once-proud names as Austin and Wolseley. It is these in particular that Nanjing intends to exploit internationally (at first) with Austin likely being used to market family cars - given the loss of the Rover marque. Wolseley is extremely likely to debut in China itself as a luxury brand which would then proliferate internationally depending upon its own national success. Nanjing is currently a very small player in the car industry, so this kind of international strategy with its newly-acquired assets makes reasonably good sense.
No, this isn't the best possible outcome, but it is certainly an extremely positive one given the rather bleak outlook for the company in recent weeks, and I'm sure the hundreds of workers whose jobs have been saved will agree. Granted, those whose jobs remain lost will be less likely to celebrate, but MG Rover was unsustainable under its previous structure. It stretched itself too far too quickly, and was far too bloated given its financial situation and its own standing in the broader industry. Massive redundancies and substantial restructuring would have been necessary to safeguard the company's future anyway, and sadly it was only the blind pride and arrogance of the managers who believed that they could actually survive as a "mass" manufacturer despite being barely a tadpole in an ocean, and that nothing could sink Rover, that ultimately slammed the final nail into the coffin.
Things could certainly be better now, but we should console ourselves with the knowledge that they could be far, far worse.
With the currect and predicted economic forecast for the car industry, this Chinese company is taking a shot in the dark. There are already too many car companies around these days, there just isn't room for anymore.
Both GM and VW Group are on thin ice at the moment, so how does a new, small, inexperienced chinese car company expect to compete? Unless the new strategy involves making and selling cars for peanuts (more likely if manufactured in China). But who would buy such a piece of crap? This could be the new Lada.
Both GM and VW Group are on thin ice at the moment, so how does a new, small, inexperienced chinese car company expect to compete? Unless the new strategy involves making and selling cars for peanuts (more likely if manufactured in China). But who would buy such a piece of crap? This could be the new Lada.
VW Group isn't really on thin ice, and GM's woes focus mainly around their catastrophically enormous obligations (healthcare, pensions etc) to their equally vast workforce. Your point about the broader car industry is quite true though, but the staggeringly obvious solution to ensuring success in the industry has only recently been discovered by the world's car manufacturers: that is, product-led sales, rather than marque-led sales.mr smuf wrote:With the currect and predicted economic forecast for the car industry, this Chinese company is taking a shot in the dark. There are already too many car companies around these days, there just isn't room for anymore.
Both GM and VW Group are on thin ice at the moment, so how does a new, small, inexperienced chinese car company expect to compete? Unless the new strategy involves making and selling cars for peanuts (more likely if manufactured in China). But who would buy such a piece of crap? This could be the new Lada.
Many manufacturers have become complacent in recent years, assuming that the history of their marques will guarantee sales in the future, despite comparatively weak products alongside those of competitors. Fiat is one manufacturer that has learnt this lesson the hard way, following a succession of utterly dull models (with the exception of the charming and excellent Panda) - UK sales in the last quarter utterly crashed compared with the previous quarter. Unbelievably, from Q1 to Q2, Fiat sales in the UK suffered a greater drop than even MG Rover, despite the latter company's liquidation!
The fact that MG Rover's sales continued, and indeed bettered some at least of its significantly larger competitors, suggests that there's life in the old dog yet.
AFAIK, not even the CityRover is available to build - it wasn't an MGR design, it wasn't even a collaborative design, it was simply a licencing agreement to market a badge-engineered version of a pre-existing foreign car in this country; it was the Honda Ballade/Triumph Acclaim situation all over again. When MGR in it's original form collapsed, the CityRover deal became void with it.Therefore, the only vehicle immediately available to build is the CityRover, and Nanjing's own portfolio of designs.
The only car design included with MGR would be the MG-F (or whatever they renamed it to), although that uses the K-series engine, so they may need to find another power unit for it.
Presently, the following brands remain in MGR ownership:It is correct that BMW retains ownership of the Rover marque, and industry rumours suggest that they are likely to agree a licensing deal for its use to SAIC within the next few weeks. This is not a major issue for Nanjing at least, as it is their intention to manufacture and sell vehicles in the UK exclusively under the MG marque. They plan to export MG vehicles too, but interestingly, they also intend to develop some of the other brands remaining under MG Rover which BMW didn't strip out along with one or two other choice assets at the time of sale.
Austin
Austin-Healy
BMC
MG
Morris
Princess
Sterling
Vanden-Plas
Wolseley
All other ex-BL brand names are either held by BMW or were sold off separately.
Certain brands+model combinations were registered as trademarks in their own right too. Some of these, such as 'Morris Minor', 'Austin Montego' and 'MG-B', remain with MGR whilst others, such as 'Rover Metro' and 'Austin Maxi' are held by BMW.
Just to complicate things further, trim levels indicated by name were also split between MGR and BMW, eg 'Clubman' is now a BMW asset, whilst 'Vitesse' remains in the hands of MGR.