What personal risks did they take? £42m for five people over five years would be reasonable for a successful company, for a failing one, something there is not quite right.
Don't you wish you could have worked there as a boss
- Thread starter jas72
- Start date
What personal risks did they take? £42m for five people over five years would be reasonable for a successful company, for a failing one, something there is not quite right.
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 12,130
"There is no such thing as a worker"
Absolutely disgusting and a shining example of greed and selfishness. Hopefully John Towers, Peter Beale, John Edwards and Nick Stephenson will be treated with utter contempt by everyone who knows them.
As to the Accountants and Lawyers who managed to screw £16 million out of the taxpayer for their toothless whitewash, I sincerely hope they are named and shamed as well.
Scum, the lot of them
Absolutely disgusting and a shining example of greed and selfishness. Hopefully John Towers, Peter Beale, John Edwards and Nick Stephenson will be treated with utter contempt by everyone who knows them.
As to the Accountants and Lawyers who managed to screw £16 million out of the taxpayer for their toothless whitewash, I sincerely hope they are named and shamed as well.
Scum, the lot of them
Rover was dead long before they got there hands on it they just squeezed out the last few drops of blood and ran off with them. in the motor industry 43m is peanuts and would have been a drop in the ocean when trying to resolve Rovers main problem which was a lack of new upto date cars.
The British motor industry was killed off years before this final trauma and while they are not soley to blame the Unions must take there share of responsibility.
The British motor industry was killed off years before this final trauma and while they are not soley to blame the Unions must take there share of responsibility.
It's not a vendetta. We simply disagree with each other - very strongly - on certain points of economic theory. I don't have anything personal against the man, and I should point out that we've agreed on quite a number of issues in the past.
Since he tends to be the most vocal (and rational) of the free market advocates here, he gets the most attention. I'd love to diversify, but there's really no-one else in his league.
Frankly, I'm amazed that he hasn't jumped on this thread yet. He's usually in like Flynn, waving the "laissez-faire economics" flag with pride, and hitting people with the pole. In fact, he's famous for it.
BTW, is there something wrong with saying "high five"? I think I've used it about three times in the past six months. Is that too many? Do you keep a secret quota? And do you have anything to contribute to this thread, or are you just trolling?
Perhaps you have used 'high five' three times, I can only recall two - this thread, and the one where you trolled the thread regarding September 11th (a post which subsequently got deleted - maybe I wasn't the only one who thought it a troll post? - who knows?).
I guess offensive posts (and antagonistic posters), whatever the content, stick in my head.
RE: Dolph - Is it not better to let someone have their say and announce their position on a matter, rather than making assumptions about how they feel? Is it so if (when) he does post in this thread, you already have the upper hand?
I do have a lot to contribute to the thread, both from an outsider's perspective, and from being the son of somebody who lost their job there. Will make a better post later.
QC and firm bills.I'm more annoyed about the investigation. How did they manage to spend £16million investigating?
Odd statement to make, given that the firm and QC who headed the report are named in both the article, and of course will be named in the report. As for being shamed? They'll receive a pat on the back from their peers for managing to get that much money of course.
It wasn't a troll post. I expressed my disgust that the media is still milking the 9/11 tragedy 8 years after it occurred. The victims' families should be allowed to grieve and move on at their own pace without their hideous circumstances being repeatedly splashed into livingrooms all over the world by other people who simply want to make money out of their pain.
My actual words in the 9/11 thread were "Can't believe the media is still milking this 8 years later. High five!" And I included a "rolleyes" smiley so that nobody would think I was being facetious. It seems that my post was misinterpreted despite this.
I am making no assumptions about Dolph's position, since I know it well. Wicksta has done exactly the same as myself in this thread, so I'm not sure why I'm the only one to be singled out for special attention.
I do have a lot to contribute to the thread, both from an outsider's perspective, and from being the son of somebody who lost their job there. Will make a better post later.
Good stuff. Look forward to it.
On a related note, I see that the struggling Vauxhall has now been bought by Magna. No doubt that'll make life interesting for Vauxhall's British employees.
Back on topic: the enquiry into Rover's collapse was a complete waste of time and money. They should have taken action at the time instead of waiting until it all fell over in a heap. I believe the government was right to let Rover collapse (there was no legitimate basis for a bailout) but wrong to let its directors continue for so long without adequate regulatory oversight.
Last edited:
It did though, the union's refusal to accept modernisation because it would mean some redundancies sentenced the company to a slow, drawn out, but inevitable death.
Don't you think it kinda undermines the argument that the unions should accept worse pay and/or conditions for their members when they see the board walking away this sort of reward?
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
Perhaps if the workers wanted £42m they should have chosen the career route of business executive rather than badly nailing together crap cars?
Yes, because choosing to be a business executive is a career choice that anyone can make, regardless of background, intelligence, education or qualifications. You can just walk into the job off the street.
Frankly, I'm amazed that more people don't do it.
Frankly, I'm amazed that more people don't do it.
I agree, and yet they can't wait to hand banks more taxpayers cash whenever they claim they need it.
Don't forget that this was the preferred choice of and strongly supported by the Labour government to put Rover in the hands of these people rather than leaving it to BMW who actually wanted to save the company but recognised it was a hard task, and that decision was motivated by union whinging about the insane demand to carry on employing thousands of people that they did not need and resist improvements at all costs.
The rover employees reaped what they sowed, they were greedy, they put in greedy bosses and the company was driven into the ground.
Zero sympathy or outrage here, this is the obvious consequences of the bad decision making process.
The rover employees reaped what they sowed, they were greedy, they put in greedy bosses and the company was driven into the ground.
Zero sympathy or outrage here, this is the obvious consequences of the bad decision making process.
I've posted now, make of it what you will
The problem is a succession of bad decisions and listening to the wrong people, supported by a government who supported the wrong decision over the right one.Should they have taken that much out of the company as it was failing? Probably not. Were they using exactly the same philosophy as the unions and workers who pretty much forced BMW to sell the company to someone who was not as good at seeing the obvious business needs? Absolutely.
Companies need to be quick, agile and efficient in the modern age. 90% of the time unions simply reduce the ability of the business to compete.
If there's going to be support for people in the work place make it government law. At least it's no down to money grabbing, power hungry union officials.
Unions within a company drive off people that wish to excel and move the company forward. Blanket pay deals result in tarring everyone with the same brush so there's no impetus to work to excel for better reward. If you do excel and make great gains for the company then even the lazy ****s get the same benefit.
Do unions prevent redundancies - no, they are more likely to create larger redundancies through negative impact on the company.
It is the company's responsibility to be fair and consider to their employees as it will be beneficial to their business. Minims can be put in place through policies and governance .
If there's going to be support for people in the work place make it government law. At least it's no down to money grabbing, power hungry union officials.
Unions within a company drive off people that wish to excel and move the company forward. Blanket pay deals result in tarring everyone with the same brush so there's no impetus to work to excel for better reward. If you do excel and make great gains for the company then even the lazy ****s get the same benefit.
Do unions prevent redundancies - no, they are more likely to create larger redundancies through negative impact on the company.
It is the company's responsibility to be fair and consider to their employees as it will be beneficial to their business. Minims can be put in place through policies and governance .
Absolutely disgusting and a shining example of greed and selfishness. Hopefully John Towers, Peter Beale, John Edwards and Nick Stephenson will be treated with utter contempt by everyone who knows them.
As to the Accountants and Lawyers who managed to screw £16 million out of the taxpayer for their toothless whitewash, I sincerely hope they are named and shamed as well.
Scum, the lot of them
It's because the government didn't have the balls or the business capacity (as in understanding of business) to reject the offer.
16M is pittance in that size of company. There's no way that they could create momentum within product sales against the tide of doom and gloom with that amount. It was blinking obvious to everyone but the wishful.
Rover failed to move forward as a business and paid the price.
No, but leaving school at 16 with no qualifications whatsoever isn't exactly the ideal start to a career in business is it?
As Dolph said the unions were killing Rover before the Phoenix group took over, looking at the fact that in the 4 years after they took over Rover lost £611m the company was obviously heading under. The union insistence that no one could lose their jobs meant that in the end everyone did.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 11 Mar 2005
- Posts
- 32,221
- Location
- Leafy Cheshire
Yep, someone finally shot the lame horse it was only a matter of time, the actual outrage is the spending of 16million on a report.
Indeed, the unions were pretty much the reason that the Pheonix consortium took over. BMW had a rescue/recovery plan that involved spending at Longbridge to modernise the archaic processes and practices but that would have also meant job losses (circa 50% iirc). To put into perspective why that was needed, comparing Longbridge with the Nissan plant in Sunderland shows that each car built at longbridge took double the man hours of sunderland, with an additional issue that the cars were also very badly built in comparison due to a lack of modern computer controlled technology producing far better consistency than humans can.
The unions objected, the government agreed, there were strike threats, and the pheonix consortium popped up out of nowhere, offering no job losses and no need to reform and offered to take the business, the government supported it (and put pressure on the Germans to accept it) and Rover was sold.
The problem was always there, but the one chance Rover really had was squandered, and now instead of 50% of employees at longbridge losing their jobs, 100% of rover employees countrywide were made redundant... A victory? I don't think so...