Wed
May 18 2011

MG Rover's ‘Phoenix Four’ neglect

Hilton Holloway
The recent banning of the ‘Phoenix Four’ – the men who took over MG Rover from BMW – from being company directors centred on the tens of millions they paid themselves over the company’s five-year life span.

For me, however, the biggest crime of Messrs Beale, Towers, Stephenson and Edwards was the scale of their ineptitude in trying to turn MG Rover around. But perhaps ineptitude is the wrong word. It was outright neglect, according to one senior MG Rover player who saw the slow collapse from the inside.



He claims MG Rover bosses were offered a life raft shortly after they bought MG Rover for a tenner. Realising that Rover’s L-series diesel engine was hopelessly outclassed, they approached Fiat about buying in its JTD diesel.

Fiat, the insider claims, came back with an amazing offer. MGR could have the diesel, but it could also license the Fiat Stilo platform. Fiat had installed at least double the capacity that the slow-selling Stilo needed and had capacity to spare.

This could have been MGR’s lifeline. Okay, the Stilo platform wasn’t the best on the market, but updates were on the way and replacing the ancient Rover 45 was the company’s number one priority.

John Towers and engineering boss Nick Stephenson both had first-hand experience of taking base Honda products and polishing them up into Rovers. The Fiat deal was a near-identical plan. Come up with a new exterior and interior skin, tune the chassis and MGR would have had a competitive product at minimal cost.

The fact that the Phoenix Four didn’t return Fiat’s call suggests that they never really intended to turn MGR around by their own efforts. Selling MGR on in short order may have been the original plan. But they didn’t manage that either.

Sign-in or register to add your comments

About Hilton Holloway

Has two product design degrees and used to design mountain bikes. Realised that cars were a lot more interesting in 1990, and has been writing about them ever since.

Comments

tuga May 18, 2011 4:05 PM

Maybe i'm being naif, but it still amazes me that these people weren't put in jail.

Los Angeles May 18, 2011 4:13 PM

"Amazes me that these people weren't put in jail." Tuga

Agreed. Was not the farago accomplished in a culture of hands off interference, (less government) and unfettered private enterprise? Had it happened in the USA there would have been at last two hardback books published on the subject, and a class act by a tough layer on behalf of cheated workers, staff, and squandering of government grants?

Los Angeles May 18, 2011 4:17 PM

layer = lawyer! Or perhaps a layer of lawyers, or a liar of lawyers ...

bentleyboy May 18, 2011 4:17 PM

Hilton, if that is right, and I have no reason to doubt it, then it is truly shocking that an opportunity was missed - it just shows how short sighted the Rover 4 were - I still don't know why they were not rumbled much quicker...

FR3000 May 18, 2011 4:48 PM

Are you sure, Hilton, that it was in fact ineptitude?  It strikes me as a bit convenient that they were that witless and lacking business acumen for all of that period of time.  After all once you liquidate a company and take your pay off your money is safe in your pocket with no more risk of loss.  Seems to me they knew Rover was a money spinner for them and positioned it to fail.

esreveRnIefiL May 18, 2011 5:09 PM

@bentleyboy

'Hilton, if that is right...'

It is indeed right... it's not exactly news either! As I recall, it was reported at time of the P4 takeover that Fiat were keen to do a deal

Tatraman May 18, 2011 5:16 PM

I wouldn't begin to condone the actions of the Phoenix 4, but who on earth would have wanted the Stilo platform? - one of the (sadly) many recent Fiat low points.

johnfaganwilliams May 18, 2011 5:27 PM

As a creditor I can vouch for the ineptitude. I was working for a board member who had no idea what was happening! Like other posters I think this was a simple smash and grab raid. OK so they are banned - who the hell would back them anyway? They are happy with the loot in whichever tax haven they've ended up in - the last thing they want is another job. Like the entire history of the UK car and bike industry since WW2 this is a story of greed, cowardice and stupidity. It's a microcosm of the decline of UK as a manufacturer and as a nation. Anyone want tickets for the next Naval Review?

tonym911 May 18, 2011 5:34 PM

I was at Longbridge on the day it closed down. The marketing folk I was there to see happily agreed to the work I was proposing to do for them. They were utterly convinced there was no problem, and it was all systems go. As I was leaving I turned on the car radio to hear the formal announcement of bust-ness. It was surreal.

johnfaganwilliams May 18, 2011 6:18 PM

Hi tonym911

Yep, same story - you weren't involved in MG to Le Mans by any chance were you? It was supposed to be a £1m contract - but as marketing guys we're not exactly at the front of the queue even for the 1p in the 1 pound!

steven211 May 18, 2011 6:41 PM

P4 were a load of morons, they have only got a slap on the wrist for their actions. If they would of done deals like that then MG Rover could of been here today. When P4 did invest in the company it was silly decisions like the MG SV and City Rover, just why? They just didn't know how to run a business, all the cared about was money, money, money.

SpiritOfSenna May 18, 2011 8:06 PM

I'm not suggesting that BMW hand a hidden hand in the failure of Rover, but I have always had my doubts about whether the collapse of Rover might actually have been advantageous to BMW. Can someone who knows something about their respective actual UK market share & predicted growth (during the period in the run-up to the sale to the Phoenix 4) please comment?

HiltonH May 18, 2011 8:45 PM

Spirit

My recollection is that Rover's market share fell off a cliff in the months after the revamped 25/45 were launched in autumn 1999. The feeling was that putting facelifted version of cars that dated back ten years - especially as this was the year after the Golf 4 was launched - showed Rover was a busted flush.

While the 25 still had a niche across Europe, the ancient 45 was two-generations adrift. The P4's overriding job was to get competitive in the Golf class.

A fellow hack has got in touch to say that some of the P4 went to Turin after Geneva 2001 but that the Fiat deal was a failure because of the fee demanded by the Italians and that some JTD-engined 75s are still on the road.

My source disagreed, and I have to say that the P4 had a £500m bung in the bank from BMW which wasn't due for repayment for decades... Surely they could have spent some of that cash, considering the state of the 45?

Why chase weird big-brother deals with Proton and the Chinese, while also trying to create its own medium-size car on the 75 platform?

The Fiat project would have seen a decent 3/5/estate Megane/Astra-rivalling range on the road by autumn 2003.

bentleyboy May 19, 2011 5:31 AM

esreveRnIefiL

Thanks, I was being particular in what I said, i too remember some talk of the Fiat platform now I have racked my brains, but as I was not party to the discussions at the time have no place to say if it was actually offered or not!

adam2853 May 19, 2011 8:29 AM

This is an interesting revelation, although from FIATs side there can't have been interest apart from capacity optimisation.....they already had Lancia which is essentially Rover in Italian (in many ways....sadly)

At least the Stilo platform was contemporary in the 00's, the 45 could date itself back to the dawn of time.  + JTD was and remains a class act.

Still, if you want to line your pockets, the last thing you want to do is spend money.....

newtoybox May 19, 2011 9:17 AM

Whilst all the above is probably true, once BMW jettisoned the bits of Rover that didn't fit their business plan, the press, including Autocar wrote regular articles saying the company was a dead duck.

The Sunday Times was the worst and, all the articles killed any sales prospects. Probably doing the same for SAAB now....................

giulivo May 19, 2011 9:51 AM

"Tatraman May 18, 2011 5:16 PM

who on earth would have wanted the Stilo platform? - one of the (sadly) many recent Fiat low points."

The car itself was sinfully ugly inside and out, as management plainly admitted afterwards (the only other case of honest "sorry we got this car wrong" I know of is the Mercedes R).

However there was nothing wrong with the platform, which is why it lives on virtually unchanged in the current Bravo and Delta, and has been evolved (with multi-link at the rear and AWD option) to underpin the Giulietta and the forthcoming Giulia, future Alfa and Jeep SUVs, next-gen Chrysler 200, etc.

OK it may not offer Elise-like driving dynamics, but on the other hand, does it really matter to normal family hatchback buyers?

newtoybox May 19, 2011 10:24 AM

@ Spiritofsenna

Berndt Pieschetstrider (spelling probably wrong) virtually killed the prospects of the Rover 75 on the day it was launched. I think he realised it was actually a good car, a competitor to the 3 and 5 series BMWs of the time.

On the plus side, more people now work for BMW, MINI, Rolls Royce Jaguar Land Rover and MG Motors than were ever employed at Longbridge in 2005.

Los Angeles May 19, 2011 11:10 AM

This all makes for very sad reading indeed. I have to add, that in any calculation of who or what was to blame for the demise of Rover the dealerships must be taken into consideration.

To put it bluntly, Rover was the only showroom I could enter clutching a wad of bank notes and still not get any attention. Whether it was lethargy, loss of morale, or ineptitude, I can't tell, but it was off-putting to a buyer.

In one vivid incident I recall a salesman, still wearing his parka while working at his desk, expressing irritation that I asked for a key to see inside the car and the boot.

LongLiveTazio May 19, 2011 12:18 PM

There appears to be some short memories present.

When it was clear the group was to collapse there wasn't exactly a lot of sympathy. All talks of a government bail-out were shunned, with the population's general consensus being: "Lazy workers, the unions, poor products, etc. - just desserts." Clarkson, as usual, stuck his oar in with such sentiments. People repeated his rubbish like parrots.

6/7 years on and now everyone gets misty-eyed about the MG badge and bemoans the death of British manufacturing? As I said at the time it happened, the knock-on effect of all those people losing their jobs would far outweigh, financially and in terms of the area's development, the cost of propping them up and having some kind of proper governmental control. As it happens, just the report into "What Went Wrong?" cost double the amount a bail-out would have cost. What great value for money.

The Phoenix 4 have attracted much vitriol and as a native Birmingham resident who grew up in the shadow of Longbridge they well deserve it. However, as far as I can make out they acted completely legally. Immoral, perhaps, but they have exploited a flawed system to their own gain and did it in a publicly accountable way. Again, apologies if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that they published all accounts as they went along, hence why they are not languishing in gaol; they didn't illegally siphon money off and launder it.

The government at the time refused to get involved when the company was originally sold and that was the end result. They were always pretty clear about asset stripping it - everyone knew that was what would happen - and that they did.

The final nail in this particular coffin is that I believe their 'banning' is actually voluntary in order to appease the powers that be and not go through any pointless legal wrangling (which would be another waste of taxpayers' money and may not have resulted in any sanctions anyway).

Yes, there were plenty of things wrong with MG Rover, but then there's plenty of things wrong with Perodua and they manage to maintain a presence. At its death the whole MG range was actually pretty decent, because whether you were an executive wanting something a bit unusual or a young guy looking for a car that looked right but with low running costs you could have your cake and eat it. The middle ground was occupied by cars like the V6 ZS, which was a *really* good drive, and the TF had its problems but its only rival was the MR2, which was uglier and slower.

I always felt a twinge of deep sadness when reading reviews (in various publications) because often it felt there was an underlying malice when something was wrong with a car, rather than a constructive approach: purely because they were an easy target and for whatever reason the British seem to love knocking things down instead of building them up and trying to make things better.

What the company needed was a guiding hand instead of neglect. As usual, the actual 'victims' are the people who worked there. They weren't flat-cap wearing 1970s stereotypes, they were decent people who in some cases lost everything when the rug was pulled from beneath their feet. What always makes these things worse is when it is preventable. And this was. Everyone knew it was coming but the only people who could have prevented it might as well have built the scaffold.

And so the Chinese now own a bit of our heritage, and all us 'car enthusiasts' bemoan the fact that another badge is in the hands of Johnny Foreigner, and isn't it terrible, etc.

The vicious circle continues.

Lesia44 May 19, 2011 12:34 PM

Crime of the century. Simple.

Los Angeles May 19, 2011 12:46 PM

"The vicious circle continues." Tazio

An excellent summation, tazio. I agree with your logic. The only thing I'd take issue with is your use of "immoral" in the case of the Four shifting largesse from the company for reasons of self-interest. I'd prefer to use the word unethical.

Had they had any genuine concern for the welfare of their workers and the company in general, they had the choice to transfer monies to their private accounts in stage payments over a long period, knowing that if the company did collapse they would not be accused of initiating the catastrophe by removing a large element of its capital. Since they did the opposite it can be argued they saw the writing on the wall and cut and ran.

As you say, instead they "exploited a flawed system." This adds weight to my opinion that a state needs a balance between private and public ownership where the rights of its citizens are not undermined or taken away, where all the power elite are accountable for their actions and cannot retreat to a safe haven or take out superinjunctions ... as we see with the disaster that is bankers gambling with money that belonged to others.

PRODIGY May 19, 2011 3:27 PM

I still can't believe Labour got off scott free.

As I understand it, Tony Blair was up for a 'bail-out' loan but Gordon Brown as Chancellor put a stop to it. As has been mentioned, the enquiry cost a lot more than any bailout would have.

The Fiat deal would have been a lifeline. But then so would the 'China Brilliance' deal (Ironic that Brilliance are now BMWs partner in China).

Also, if TWR hadn't have gone bust then the 45/ZS replacement would have been out in 2004, but then if you had seen the car that was due out then you would probably agree that it would have failed as it looked a bit naff... Vectra front end with an ugly back end.

The other thing to consider; if MGRover had have been bailed out and saved, would they have lasted through the recession? Especially as Tazio quite rightly points out - the motoring press hated Rover.

Los Angeles May 19, 2011 4:41 PM

"If MGRover had have been bailed out and saved, would they have lasted through the recession?" Prodigy

Which of the bans woud have survived a month without massive injections of our taxes?

Barring the Fiddling Four from executive positions after they have disappeared with their ill-gotten gains is a prime example of locking the stable door after the horse has bolted.

We need mechanisms in place that stop the freedom to shift a company's capital around especially while it exists on a knife edge, and serious sanctions on those who indulge in "creative accountancy."

Los Angeles May 19, 2011 4:52 PM

bans = banks. The "We are too big to fail" scammers.

Once a state is made wholly reliant on its financial services disregarding of its manufacturing industry - which is still the case in the UK - we are in for trouble. Unlike the banks the loss of Rover didn't bring the country to its knees and run us all at least £6,000 debt per capita, and reducing services and savings.

Broughster May 20, 2011 4:47 PM

It looks like from the start P4 were far more interested in financial engineering than automotive engineering, so the end result in their hands was never in doubt. The Labour government turned down Moulton, because it would have meant redundancies and they had a lot of marginal seats in the Midlands. The sad fact is that it would have been better to have lost half the workforce then, than the whole workforce later...

The real sadness was when Rover went to BMW rather than Honda, post British Aerospace. I know an insider on those negotiations and Honda were effectively shut out of the sale negotiations because of a totally  unrealistic timetable to do their due diligence and table an offer. BMW came up with an offer very quickly, but had an age to regret it. My personal view is that Rover would have prospered under Honda, they would have been allowed to develop models properly and the brand would be in great shape. If you don't believe me look at Honda in Swindon.

Finally, I think the gratuitous banker bashing is a bit far fetched. If anything the P4 demonstrated that manufacturing industry idiots can be just as incompetent as financial industry ones....

Los Angeles May 20, 2011 6:36 PM

"Finally, I think the gratuitous banker bashing is a bit far fetched. If anything the P4 demonstrated that manufacturing industry idiots can be just as incompetent as financial industry ones...." Broughster

Granted, but let us not be niave; they are linked: the result of placing financial services above manufacturing and allowing global markets to dictate who works and who doesn't.

The collapse of Rover, the ease with which the Phoenix Four lined their own pockets, and presidided over their company as it turned to ashes (note the irony) are all linked to the "creative destruction" which is the new global order, where economic power is highly concentrated, so much so that the rich and powerful are duly made wealthier and empowered (as the Four were and bankers too) and the rest of us are left to survive as best we can.

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 - Autocar 2012-02-22

NEW ISSUE OUT NOW

FAST, EASY & SECURE
SUBSCRIBE NOW>>