I've been reading many of the posts over the last week or so - and keeping my
mouth firmly
shut, fearful that any might think a reply from me (or even input) might be
construed as
an
inside track statement or tinged with an official response.
It isn't.
Being one of several tens of thousand likely to find myself looking for another
job at
some stage in the future, my personal opinion of the current situation is that
BMW
entirely misunderstood the magnitude of Rover general disposition when it
bought the
company. Much the same might in some ways be said for Ford when it bought
Jaguar. The
difference here is that Ford stuck with the problem until the light was bright
at the end
of the tunnel. I feel there is very bright light in Rover's tunnel too - but
not in the
way the company looks as though it is likely to be carved up.
In Jaguar's case, there was a major loss of confidence in the marque's build
quality and
reliability and it has taken ten long years for Jaguar to 'turn around' and
find itself as
a desired marque once more. I think many of us felt the same for Rover but for a
diversity of reasons, it is clear the general public in the UK need far more
convincing.
Rover is saddled with the customary and arguably unique British tendency to
criticise its
own industrial capability and is condemned out of hand whenever the opportunity
arises by
many people who do not have an intimate knowledge of the organisation or how it
works..
For this, our media and lounge bar experts with their usual unfounded claptrap
(some has
permeated this list) are the main culprits. Too often, ill-informed
sensationalism gets in
the way - so there's nothing new there. But as a nation, we are all guilty of
this to a
greater or lesser extent, ever convinced that everything we do is flawed - even
before
it's given a chance to live. Rover's present difficulties are no exception and
the insular
British attitude of "yippee, another of our companies is going down the tube -
we're
incapable of doing anything and getting it right" is now so common it fails to
make others
notice.
Over the last few weeks, I've been doing two things in this particular focus.
First, I've read a number of posts on this list (and others) written by people
who seem to
be of the firm opinion that Rover is just as it always was. What I call 'old
Rover' died
in 1968 when BL came into being. 'New Rover' is, IMHO, nothing more than a
re-named
version of the worst and least profitable part of BL that somehow survived, but
should not
have been allowed to and under a different name. In those very early BL days,
much of the
company was profitable (Jaguar, Rover, Triumph) the bus and truck division and
a few other
parts as well. The former BMC was the principal money losing culprit but that's
all now
gone and is history.
Second, I've been able to drive all of the current Rover product range over some
meaningful distances (for the UK) and IMHO they are are as good as any other
comparable
car produced anywhere. The build quality is outstanding, the finish is superb
performance
is by no means lacking and its an all-round excellent means of transport. If I
needed a
new car and more importantly could afford one, a current Rover 25, 45 or even a
75 would
demand my absolute attention and definitely be a possible buy. I'm just not so
sure about
my local dealer's ability to support it and in that area alone there are many
problems
that cannot be laid at manufacturing quality in isolation.
As all this relates to Rover and the current product range, BMW really have
almost reached
the point of making a silk purse out of a sow's ear and both BMW and Rover
management and
workers alike have effectively achieved the impossible and against all odds. A
failure? NO
WAY!
What Rover's critics entirely overlook (in fact they've probably not even given
it any
thought), is that the forthcoming product range is a quantum leap forward - and
this is
where the pain of the the current plan to break up the company really hurts.
* The Mini replacement is an outstanding car and I am convinced would have had
a rapturous
following if it had been allowed to continue as a Mini. BMW are keeping that
one because
they know a good car when they see it. Comments coming to me from some people
close to the
action suggest it wasn't so long ago that BMW said the new mini was doomed. Now
it seems
they have changed their minds.
* The R30 - the new mid-range replacement is another show stopper. BMW are
allegedly
keeping that one too.
* The Rover 75 Estate car (Wagon) is another gem and may/may not see the light
of day.
* The much modified and improved MGF was stopped by BMW for one key reason. It
was an
all-round better car than the Z3. A BMW executive admitted that to me some
months ago.
Okay, so the development costs for those cars was funded by BMW and even though
I'm not an
accountant it seems that German accounting practices are radically different
from UK ones
and the costs for all these cars are alleged to have been dumped into the *big
loss pot.*
Bringing the Rover 75 to market cost GBP 1 billion alone and half that amount
is a typical
spend for virtually any mass-produced car today.
This means that a far blacker picture has probably been painted of Rover's
financial
situation. The loss is not just because of limited sales - there's wads of
money being
thrown into the scenario that allegedly shouldn't be there and this is sending
out
entirely the wrong signals to the world as a whole.
The bottom line is that by throwing in the towel at this stage, BMW is stifling
the truth
on all the work that has taken place at Rover during the period of German
control. In the
not too distant future, it's highly likely that at least two new cars will
appear on the
market wearing a BMW badge when in truth, they ought to have been Rovers and in
their
conception ARE Rovers - namely, new Mini and R30 in original or abridged form.
When (if) that time comes, the world will doubtless applaud BMW from the
rooftops for
rising like a phoenix from the ashes and shaking the dust of Rover from its
feet, when the
reality is simply that the company thought it could work better and faster than
Ford did
with Jaguar - proved it couldn't and walked off with two models that are not of
its own
design.
There is one area where I will agree with BMW's decision to dump the company.
While there
is no convincing evidence the product continues to be of poor quality - it's
still
fiendishly expensive in
mainland Europe and this is very largely because of the very high value of the
Pound in
the international markets. That is not Rover's fault and is an endemic problem
throughout
British industry that our government seems singualarly disinclined to tackle /
won't
tackle / doesn't have the backbone to face - or whatever. This inescapable
fact, allied to
the loss of confidence in the Rover name on the UK home market are almost
certainly the
key reasons for the problem now facing upwards of 10,000 employees and perhaps
30,000 in
the component supplier industry.
As things stand and when the dust starts to settle later in the year or at the
most, a
year from now, I am strictly personally of the view that BMW will not still be
on its own.
I greatly suspect that it too will have fallen victim to Ford or GM.
As for Gaydon - it's business as usual. All of us are working flat out to keep
it together
for the simple fact that
its unique, is a focal point for an industry that once was and has more history
in its
sixty five acres of irreplacable archive material and cars than probably the
rest of the
world put together. For
us for the time being - it's carry on regardless and two fingers to anyone
(this list
included) who prefer to think we're finished.
Jonmac
Current Book: IN THE SHADOW OF MY FATHER
http://www.toolbox.ndirect.co.uk/triumphbook
Triumph Charity Run in 2000 (in UK): http://www.toolbox.ndirect.co.uk/stories/
|