Jaguar Land Rover has denied reports that it is seeking 'a bailout' from the government.
The company has desribed itself as “a healthy, viable business”, which needs short-term support to cope with “a national emergency requiring urgent action”.
The comments follow reports that trade secretary Peter Mandelson is on the point of announcing loan guarantees for JLR.
Jaguar Land Rover believes both its requirements and its UK role are widely misunderstood.
It is at pains to point out that it was solidly profitable until the first half of 2008 and its business continues to support up to 75,000 jobs.
Jaguar Land Rover holds a special place as one of the UK’s biggest contributors to automotive R&D (its 2007 spending of £400 million represented around 50 per cent of the total UK outlay) and its annual exports are worth £4bn.
The company says it has “strong investment and product plans for the future” and that its parent, Tata Motors, has invested “hundreds of millions” in JLR since committing £1bn to buy the business from Ford around six months ago.
“Our current concern, along with the rest of the industry, is short-term liquidity and demand,” said a company spokesman.
Join the debate
Add your comment
Re: JLR denies it needs 'bail out'
Ultimately, this isn’t because JLR is unviable, it’s because turnover is low as it is for everyone right now. This isn’t even because the product is wrong and the future itself is very good. The situation, for which the UK government has to take a responsibility in part for, has been generated by external factors. This isn’t a repeat of MGR or BLMC, noone is selling cars, and Jaguar are one of the few manufacturers whose performance has in fact improved annually. No, a LOAN (not bailout) will not make people buy cars, the same as VAT cut has not remotely helped individuals, but to provide liquidity during the darkest era. It would take just one supplier to go bankrupt to halt many producers, JLR included because cash flow ceases and debts, wages and bills continue. When a supplier goes bust, the administrators force companies into buying back their own I.P’s and equipment back and charge them millions for the privelage. If 75,000 jobs are lost, the loss of company tax revenue will rival the size of the loan (which if course would then have interest on top too), but furthermore thats 75,000 people no longer paying income tax, as many households needing state support, and thats 75,000 plus dependents not injecting cash into the local economy, again more loss of tax, more loss of business viability and the whole systems collapse. I ask anybody to really consider this, because I don’t think people are looking at the amount of damage this will do. JLR is a business starting to fight for itself with some genuinely good product and excellent future, but this situation has been imposed on the business and the people. Working man always pays for the powers mistakes.
Re: JLR denies it needs 'bail out'
North buddy - you haven't read my post properly have you ?
Second scentence just before the links
I didn't say all, I said almost all. Try looking at the November 2008 compared with November 2007 sales - I'll even post some links
Clear now ?
The whole reason for posting November 2008 vs 2007 is to show the whole automotive market is in decline post the mid year bank issues.
Jaguar will sell more cars this year than last - but many manufacturers had a great start to 2008 (Land Rover included).
Re: JLR denies it needs 'bail out'
Just as a note, you critised horseandcart re. articles, but if you read the article you posted....it gives 21.4% down for NOVEMBER; Ford EU market share grow to 8.8% and in the same article (second paragraph) it states Ford EU overall sales figures (year to date) are down 4.4%......in other words Horseandcart is correct.
I have not checked any of your other references, I just checked one but I wonder if you have missunderstood the other figures? and do not get me wrong, I think it is brilliant references are given, its fantastic, but please quote right.
I have just checked the Merc figures and again you miss understood, the NOVEMBER sales are down against NOVEMBER last year, but YEAR TO DATE figues shows JUST a 1% decline; for both Merc and Ford EU I would say a massively respectable set of trading results in harsh times
UNLIKE JLR, JLR has the wrong product mix at the wrong prices at the wrong time, look at the new car they are looking at bringing out, is it a fuel efficient car at a more affordable price with top quality, NO, its a luxury sports car? I tell you what, rather than give them tax payers money, if all those tax payers that want to give them money set up a charity fund, then put your money into that and give JLR that money from the charity fund; thats the best way to do it.
Also, if you fund the dealers, what you then do is allow them to buy more cars from JLR, NO ONE (hardly anyone) is BUYING JLR products thus the dealers stock pile the cars, in effect you reverse subsidise JLR, which is wrong and side ways route to subsidising JLR and it will do it no favours as JLR still make the wrong products.
Look at what Merc are releasing news of i.e. Eco-friendly cars, yes they also do sports cars, BUT they HAVE an EXCELLENT PRODUCT MIX and an effective future strategy, JLR HAS to DOWNSIZE (horseandcart is bang on the money), they HAVE TOO, thus it needs to be faced that JLR makes the wrong products and will suffer as a result of its own lack luster performance and management, as said, if you want to put money in, set up a charity and people that wish to donate, feel free to donate. me I would much rather (and will) give any of my spare money to cancer research; JLR, employs too many people, it has a bad porduct mix, £1bn will not save it, it needs about £3.5bn (at least) and that's just for new products that it needs all within the next three years; TATA need to put the money in not the UK tax payer; TATA needs to place the money in as they promised they would;
That is probably my last post on this site (there might be more) but I had a quick look in and observed some of the comments and thought I would correct; as a note I will not be reading any other responses to this; thanks, NORTH