Tue
Jul 07 2009

MG Rover: ****-up or conspiracy?

Mike Duff
You don't need to be able to audit rocket science programmes to work out why MG Rover collapsed four years ago.

The ill-fated company ran out of cash, burning through the balance that BMW had bequeathed it when it was set free, and unable to raise enough revenue from sales of its aging line-up - or the mortgaging of various assets - to keep the boat afloat.



Read 'Police to investigate MG Rover'

During that period, the so-called 'Phoenix Four', the directors who controlled MGR, paid themselves a combined total of about £40m in pay and pensions contributions. Under their direction the company also spent tens of millions funding ill-advised racing and record-breaking efforts, none of which did anything to turn around sales.

But it’s also worth pointing out that the company did invest a considerable chunk of its inheritance, and the money it got from mortgaging various parts of the business - into the development of the new, mid-sized model that it hoped would turn its fortunes around. There may have been snouts in the trough, but this certainly wasn't the sort of two-dimensional asset stripping you'd expect to see in a company being deliberately flown into the ground.

And that's the crucial point here: does ****-up or conspiracy lie behind the demise of MG Rover?

Nobody doubts that MG Rover suffered from bad management throughout its brief, unhappy existence as an independent company. But unless the official investigation has turned up a piece of 'smoking gun' evidence to prove deliberate collusion lay behind the company's collapse, it's hard to see what the Serious Fraud Office is expected to find now that it couldn't have managed back in 2005.

And in the meantime we're being denied the chance to read the final chapter in the decline and fall of what was once one of the world's great carmakers.

A chapter that we've already collectively paid £16m to have written.

Technorati Tags: , , , ,

Sign-in or register to add your comments

About Mike Duff

Used to edit this website, but now back to reporting from the road - and contemplating which sub-£1000 1990s German executive to buy next

Comments

artill July 6, 2009 11:27 AM

For what its worth my opinion is that it was bad luck, followed by interference from thr government. they obviously always knew it was just a question of how long, with the only hope on the horizon being a merger or buyout. But just as they were getting close with the chinese, government interference effectively told the chinese to wait a few weeks and you can pick it all up for next to nothing, without taking on the UK liabilities. So thats just what they did. OK the racing was ill advised, and the management took a lot, but neither made any real difference in the end.

TegTypeR July 6, 2009 11:30 AM

Misguided I think is possibly the best way to describe it.  I can't see that the amount of R&D that was put in to future models would indicate they were being deliberately neglectful of the company.  

If they wanted an quick money making scheme then it would have been easy for them to propose a badge engineered future model range using updated products from another company.

I also don't believe they are squeaky clean, but I challenge you to show me any large company that doesn't look for loopholes.

jonfortwo July 6, 2009 11:54 AM

I think what MG Rover achieved on virtually no money was good, sure the 25/45 ZR/ZS was long in the tooth but i still think a Late MG ZS saloon looks terrific today and my MG ZR never let me down once and was also great fun to drive.

Ironically if the global meltdown had occured sooner they would probably had survived by enjoying the "soft" loans that other euro manufacturers enjoy.

Did the Phoenix four line there pockets? Our MP`s are perfectly placed to tell us the truth on this one.

adam2853 July 6, 2009 12:50 PM

Which of the Phoenix four was it that was harassed in his Cayenne Turbo on the way to his country manner in the Cotswolds.....or was it in Cornwall.  I forget.  

But to be honest the 4 probably knew it was all going down the pan, so why not asset strip, have some fun with race programmes and half develop a car to give the company something of slight value to sell after the enevitable came to be?

Thousands of jobs lost? Yes, but they were lost when BMW romoved themselves from obligation, the Phoenix 4 effectively posponed unemployment of these poor chaps.  Lancia, Saab, Volvo and Seat are baerly surviving in the same decade, and that is with the support of platforms from a HUGE automotive powerhouse (untill recently for the swedes) so, admitadly with hindsight, Rover never stood a chance.

It seems we brits can only produce decent cars under foreign management, or produce high quality cars from foreign manufacturers.  Who is to blame? - poor management and a lack in product investment (ie, management).

Fred Dagg July 7, 2009 1:15 AM

MG Rover, Austin Rover, BL, BMC... the firms demise had been on the cards for over 30 years. Buyouts, bailouts and sell outs, they tried it all. It should have been left to die of natural causes in the 70's.

Citytiger July 7, 2009 11:56 AM

Fred Dagg has hit the nail on the head, but dont forget to add Jaguar, Landrover, and Triumph to the list.

The merger into BL ruined the reputation of the British car industry, and it has failed to recover.

ordinary bloke July 7, 2009 11:58 AM

I think I'd go with the bad luck theory not helped by the interference of the Government, which is what the current non-disclosure of the Enquiry by ferral to the Seerious Fraud Office is designed to delay and eventually obscure.

MG/Rover were certainly producing some good cars, I nearly bought an MG ZT diesel automatic that had every conceivable extra fitted, the local dealer had it as a 3 month old management / demonstrator car but it had less than a thousand miles on the clock. It drove beautifully and was very nicely finished and built and was on sale for about 30% off list price. I spent a very pleasant afternoon with it but eventually decided that with the future of the company beginning to be speculated about in the press it would be wise to walk away. When I see one on the road now I still have a pang of regret for not getting such a handsome car.

noluddite July 7, 2009 12:19 PM

Lets not worry too much about the £16M. Yes, it probably was a total waste of public money. Yes, the Directors are probably guilty of plundering the business for rewards well in excess of what they deserved, and yes, they made some really fundamental, stupid, amateurish mistakes. <br> But lets not be too harsh on them, because they took their lead from a government that has made far worse mistakes and walked away unscathed, spending trillions of our pounds in the process. <br> Just wait until May next year, then take your revenge. And continue to do so every 4 years until you die. That's my plan.

North July 8, 2009 8:56 AM

Stop blaming the gov. if you want someone to blame hit BMW....yes BMW; they asset striped it long before anyone else......yet no blames them.....BMW are the first ones to point the figure at.

Then the managers, it was a mess, they should stopped trying to be what they were and start moving to a better future; why make a V8 monster car?

They should have re-invented the business with small cars like a UK Fiat; if they were going to develop anything it should have been a cheap rival to the Mini and not that City Rover thing.

But blame BMW.....blame BMW and I will say it once more BLAME BMW......they asset stripped it, they took what they wanted and throw it to one side......end of.

If you really want to protest, stop buying BMWs.....and when asked why.....simple say that you thought the asset stripping of Rover was wrong.....if you stop buying Minis BMW will sell the Mini company and someone in the UK can buy it; then it UK owned again.

STOP BUYING BMWs......vote with your pocket; if you do not fine, but do not compain......it means nothing if you do if you keep buying BMW...simple as; the choice is yours....but BMW asset stripped Rover long before Phoenix...so if you really have a problem, stop buying BMW.

bulgarski July 11, 2009 10:25 PM

@ North

Why are you such an ***hole?  We all know you hate BMW which is fine as that's your choice, but these rants where you blame BMW for virtually everything and claim they are finished is pathetic.  Yes, forums like these are for expressing differing opinions but you constantly state your opinions as fact when they are clearly just the biased bull**it of which your head is full.  Just been reading your posts on the Vauxhall Insignia VXR - apart from being hilarious, only someone as arrogant & stupid as you could not fail to realise what a fool you are making of yourself - mind you it does give the rest of us a good giggle.  Why is it BMW are crap at everything (if true isn't funny how so many people keep buying them) yet Mercedes (and I like Mercedes), Ford, GM & Chrysler cannot put a foot wrong.  Mercedes quality nose-dived in the 90's, GM & Chrysler are bust companies who only exist today because of massive Government bail-outs.  Ford deserve credit for surviving without a bail-out.  How can you possibly state BMW are so crap while claiming GM are so great - at least BMW didn't need a state handout to survive.  Of course I have just wasted 5mins typing this as the rant I will get in reply will be impossible to read - tell me, don't you find it the least bit curious that no-one ever agrees with you?

Mr_H July 31, 2009 7:08 PM

North, I kind of agree with you on some points - however, the Rover 75 was, and still is a fine car, BUT, the Mini, which was designed and part engineered by MGR was taken by BMW during the sell-off, and that I can't forgive BMW for - look at what it's done for them - and what it could have done for MGR.

If you really want to point any fingers though, it should be at the UK government, when they sold Rover Group to British Aerospace. If you look at what Rover was producing at the time (1989ish) - 200/400 series, Rover Metro, 800 series etc. the cars were very competitive, especially the 200 series, which if I remember rightly was hailed as a good quality, well-built and stylish Escort/Golf competitor.  They sold well too.

I think the Pheonix 4 did their best with what was essentially a bare cupboard. Admittedly, the MG SV was a waste of time, and the City Rover a blind alley, but, for a while we all thought they could rescue MGR. The buying public, bad press, and frankly (with the exception of the 75/MG ZT) outdated cars did the rest.

I've been looking at the RDX60 (which was the 45/ZS replacement), and can't help thinking "If the UK government had put some ££s in, MGR may still be trading". Google it - not a bad car at all.

Anyway, rhetoric is all well and good, but it won't bring MGR back to Longbridge. And I can talk, I've only ever owned 1 BL car (Mini), and that rusted to oblivion.

All about Autocar

Newsfeeds

Subscribe to our news with our RSS feeds

Advertise

To advertise with Autocar contact us

Buy our magazines

Discover our titles at themagazineshop.com

Autocar latest issue - Mag cover 3-2-10

NEW ISSUE OUT NOW

FAST, EASY & SECURE
SUBSCRIBE NOW>>