Investigative Report: Affairs of MG Rover Group & Phoenix Venture Holdings etc

[bl52krz]

I really do not think it was a sinking ship. It was a vessel for ripping off a company and legalised theft that still takes place today. When the Phoenix Four took over the business, I spoke to someone who knew two of the people involved through his own company. I said that I was glad they had taken over Rover, they will have a good future now. He just laughed. I asked why he laughed, and he said that he knew two of the people involved, and that within five years Rover will be gone. How long was it before Rover had gone? The workers were the last thing on their minds,only their own back pockets. Absoluteley disgusting in this day and age that companies can be robbed by legal methods. But hey, what's new. I had read this before Alan, but every time I read it, I became more incensed that they did it almost legally . Hence their punishment...........all the way to the bank..

[wraymond]

Originally Posted by mss

The point I was making was that the functions existed prior to 2009.

Yes.... of course it did. But under very different circumstances and with wholly different attitudes to the country's manufacturing stock. The different managing personnel and related philosophies cannot be traced back so easily. That's why semantics such as naming the correct names are so vital - history is useless if inaccurate. The final identity was after three or four changes of brief and key figures with disparate influences! Unfortunately, typical.

[topman]

I don't think there's a huge amount to be learned from digging up this. Many have entrenched views on the subject, regardless of how many reports are created. Me, i think even if the Phoenix group had all worked for free it wouldn't have changed how and what happened, it'd pushed it back yes but not in any meaningful way. The company would have still gone under, the rot had set in long ago.
As to the government, well they were worried about pouring good money on after. They were in a damned if you do damned if you don't situation.

[MSS]

Originally Posted by wraymond

Yes.... of course it did. But under very different circumstances and with wholly different attitudes to the country's manufacturing stock. The different managing personnel and related philosophies cannot be traced back so easily. That's why semantics such as naming the correct names are so vital - history is useless if inaccurate. The final identity was after three or four changes of brief and key figures with disparate influences! Unfortunately, typical.

Actually, the attitiudes to the country's manufacturing stock have not really changed since the 1970's. That is the fundamental problem - the erosion started a long time ago and continues.

From memory, the fnal version of this report was published in 2009. Hence the departmental title I guess.

It may be that I am missing your point. Perhaps you could clarify what is the relevane of semantics in the context of this report, which was commission by the Minister for the DTI.

[wraymond]

Originally Posted by mss

Actually, the attitiudes to the country's manufacturing stock have not really changed since the 1970's. That is the fundamental problem - the erosion started a long time ago and continues.

From memory, the fnal version of this report was published in 2009. Hence the departmental title I guess.

It may be that I am missing your point. Perhaps you could clarify what is the relevane of semantics in the context of this report, which was commission by the Minister for the DTI.

No, I don’t think my meaning was missed.

With regard to ‘semantics’ I was referring to my own thoughts (so my own semantics) on the titles being used and the nature/make up/objectives of the earlier Ministries having little to do with the thrust of the report. The whole affair ultimately comes down to apportionment of blame and the reputations of those involved so it might be thought important to consider the implications of the bigger picture so as not taint earlier individuals with criticisms of the later ones.

I believe attitudes have undergone some change for the better recently. Proposals around the nuclear industry for foreign involvement have been stopped on (assumed to be) security grounds and there are moves afoot to set up a vetting focus group to oversee all proposed take-overs of strategic businesses. This is alleged to be included in the next government’s programme. The next two years might be seen as crucial to consider ‘The City’ and it’s future importance.

[Pete]

Originally Posted by topman

I don't think there's a huge amount to be learned from digging up this. Many have entrenched views on the subject, regardless of how many reports are created. Me, i think even if the Phoenix group had all worked for free it wouldn't have changed how and what happened, it'd pushed it back yes but not in any meaningful way. The company would have still gone under, the rot had set in long ago.
As to the government, well they were worried about pouring good money on after. They were in a damned if you do damned if you don't situation.

I can't agree on the business being unviable when it was taken over, but the people involved were simply not up to the job.

[MSS]

The people concerned took on what was probably the biggest management challenge in UK corporate history and made a go of it for a number of years. They did this without any support from the government or politicians and very little from the buying public.

They provided jobs for a large number of people over a number of years.

Personally, I feel that as an MGR enthusiasts club we should be upholding them in high esteem.

[Rikki]

Well that was an interesting afternoon .. never even thought about the demise of MGR, but spent some time reading the report above.

I disagree with Pete I don't think it was about some folks not being up to the job. - There were some very clever and in some cases possibly dubious moves made to maximise the profits of PVH ( and the pockets of its directors) while minimising the potential risks to PVH, ensuring the risks were held by MGR itself or other MGR group companies.

Just two instances of what is quite a few, the changing of the Xpart business model to create a no profit no asset business allowing it to be bought by PVH for a nominal £1- the parts business had bought into MGR coffers over £30 million up to that point. then restructuring Xpart to make it into an asset /profit business again and subsequently selling it to CAT Logistics - very nice for PVH but not sure it was in MGR groups interests.

and the purchase by PVH of the leasing/PCP business from BMW- at least with this one BMW made "unreasonable " demands that the directors of PVH couldn't benefit personally from the deal.(did BMW see things that the auditors didn't /didn't want too?) That didn't stop PVH from taking the income from the deal and making the MGR underwrite the residual value of cars out on lease/PCP.

There are many more instances of PVH holding the "cream" of the group leaving MGR with the problems.

So no its not that they were not up to the task, just their task wasn't to turn MGR around but to use PVH to squeeze as much out as they could.

There is a lot in there that I would have thought the auditors during trading should have highlighted in the annual report and didn't.. Certainly the huge amounts of invoices paid by MGR to a car dealership owned by a director of PVH without substantive evidence should have at least raised some eyebrows. as should the payment of an invoice to a sacked/resigned director for work clearly never carried out, and the subsequent insistence that a business partner pay the same person and hefty "introduction" fee. - but times were different then I would imagine today any auditor that signed off on accounts such as these would be up in front of the regulatory bodies.

That said reading the Alchemy proposal I would say the only difference is that MGR would not have lasted as long as it did if it was under Alchemy.

[sworks]

Originally Posted by mss

The people concerned took on what was probably the biggest management challenge in UK corporate history and made a go of it for a number of years. They did this without any support from the government or politicians and very little from the buying public.

They provided jobs for a large number of people over a number of years.

Personally, I feel that as an MGR enthusiasts club we should be upholding them in high esteem.

I've got to admit that hat I've never read the report, I will at some point but I never have long enough to just do nothing else. The Phoenix Four took on a job that BMW couldn't do with an almost unlimited budget, they had to let MGR go before it damaged the BMW brand due to the huge losses. The Phoenix Four kept people employed for a further 5 years and produced the Z range.

[topman]

Originally Posted by Pete

I can't agree on the business being unviable when it was taken over, but the people involved were simply not up to the job.

Nearly all car companies need to be huge to survive* with vast pockets, rover wasn't that company it didn't have anywhere near the resources to survive on its own. Even the directors worked for free it wouldn't make any difference. The numbers knocked about on here, £20 million here £30 million there are nothing to large scale car companies. For example the first mondeo alone was rumoured to cost £1 billion its very much a conglomerates world.

* of course smaller ones are there but they are very specialised ie morgan.