Don't you wish you could have worked there as a boss

[Gilly]

The only way to have done anything with the company would have been to steal Toyota's methodologies and improve the marketable assets of the company.

One without the other was doomed to fail. Neither only saw the process speed up.

 

[Sankari]

No, but leaving school at 16 with no qualifications whatsoever isn't exactly the ideal start to a career in business is it?

Of course it isn't. But not everyone is cut out to be a business executive, even if they get through uni.

 

[JRS]

The Phoenix Four didn't kill Rover, they merely posed with the corpse for a bit before cutting and running. If they made a fortune out of it illegally, then they should be pursued for it. But the one thing you couldn't do is charge them with killing the company. It was long dead before they got in on the act.

 

[MonkeyNews]

ffs BBC, I'm sick of you.

Why exactly are you sick of the BBC for saying bought? Bought is the past tense of buy, they did buy Rover from BMW, so they have none nothing wrong grammatically so far as I can see.

 

[scorza]

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.

Perhaps if the board at Rover were more appropriately incentivised things might have been different. I've neither seen or heard any evidence that the unions made any such demands, even if they did, it's management's job to handle industrial relations to the benefit of the company. If they simply caved in to union demands then it's even more evidence that they don't deserve their rewards.

 

[antijoke]

The only way to have done anything with the company would have been to steal Toyota's methodologies and improve the marketable assets of the company.

Ahhh the Toyota way.

 

[NickK]

The only way to have done anything with the company would have been to steal Toyota's methodologies and improve the marketable assets of the company.

One without the other was doomed to fail. Neither only saw the process speed up.

Trouble is that their target market was over saturated and some of the toughest business environments anywhere.

If they'd adopted up to date methodologies, and future designs in the 1980s they may have had enough cash in the bank to tide them over the slump and a more attractive sales proposition if needed.
By the mid 90s the death knell was already sounding. By the early 00s they were merrily being punted down the river of oblivion.

 

[scorza]

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...

Are you thinking about the rival bid for Rover from PE Group Alchemy Partners? Because as I remember it BMW just decided they wanted rid of Rover once they'd stripped it of Mini and Land Rover (the profitable parts that didn't compete with BMW - odd how the unions weren't the problem with these two).

There were two serious bids, Phoenix and Alchemy, IIRC Alchemy wanted Rover to become a non-volume car maker, which would have cut jobs by 50%, but they pulled out because the cost of making those redundancies would have been more than expected.

 

[Sankari]

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.

Actually I'm tempted to agree with you here, but I don't know enough about the details to be sure. What was the BMW deal all about, and why was it knocked back? Were the Rover employees actually responsible for choosing their own bosses, and were they motivated by greed? Some objective evidence would be helpful.

 

[Dolph]

Perhaps if the board at Rover were more appropriately incentivised things might have been different. I've neither seen or heard any evidence that the unions made any such demands, even if they did, it's management's job to handle industrial relations to the benefit of the company. If they simply caved in to union demands then it's even more evidence that they don't deserve their rewards.

I take it you missed all the news articles from 1999-2000 where the unions were demanding that the government did everything possible to maintain jobs etc..

 

[Bleek]

Companies need to be quick, agile and efficient in the modern age.

AKA making people redundant.

 

[scorza]

I take it you missed all the news articles from 1999-2000 where the unions were demanding that the government did everything possible to maintain jobs etc..

Since Rover wasn't owned by the government at that time, the point is moot.

 

[Dolph]

Actually I'm tempted to agree with you here, but I don't know enough about the details to be sure. What was the BMW deal all about, and why was it knocked back? Were the Rover employees actually responsible for choosing their own bosses, and were they motivated by greed? Some objective evidence would be helpful.

Original BMW suggestion.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/197941.stm

Look at building new model

http://usproxy.bbc.com/2/hi/business/292071.stm

The offer to save the plant in conjunction with the government.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/308789.stm

The EU get involved with the support and modernisation package, meaning it was delayed.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/568907.stm
http://usproxy.bbc.com/2/hi/business/662605.stm

BMW decide to cut their losses with Rover cars (keeping one seperate entity that had been bundled with Rover despite financial independence for years in Landrover, and the Mini, which they had paid for the development of anyway)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/679169.stm

BMW look to sell to Alchemy holdings (who had a realistic, if painful, business plan), but the UK government and the unions pressure BMW to find an alternative.

https://www.bmw-mania.com/web/SCatagory/Factory/DisplayType/News/DisplayID/337/ArticleV.cfm

Talks with Alchemy break down following the realisation that BMW would not be on the hook if Rover failed in the first two years following the sale, and (with strong support from the unions and the goverment) the phoenix consortium come on to the scene.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/729117.stm

The sale to the phoenix consortium completes, with workers, unions and the government celebrating.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/741701.stm

I think that gives a good overview of the events and the attitudes underpinning them.

 

[NickK]

AKA making people redundant.

Making people redundant has nothing todo with company agility. It's the mindset within the company that can't be changed that causes failure and redundancy.

Company agility means the people within are self motivated to overcome the issues that the company faces - together as a company. If you don't like that then there is the door. If you think you can just twiddle your thumbs and get a disruptive group to cause pain to the company then there is the door.

A company employee and their company are mutually dependant on each other for success. It's not handed on a plate by management for union/employees to pick and choose what they like and don't like.

Welcome to reality. Welcome to the modern business world.


If you don't like that leave. If your area hasn't got jobs, then you will need to look elsewhere or retrain in something. If you don't like those options then suck it up and stop acting like a spoilt child.
The market and business moves whether you like it or not. You need to move with that or face darwinism - your choice.

* this is not focused at you but an individual in that situation.

 

[Dolph]

Are you thinking about the rival bid for Rover from PE Group Alchemy Partners? Because as I remember it BMW just decided they wanted rid of Rover once they'd stripped it of Mini and Land Rover (the profitable parts that didn't compete with BMW - odd how the unions weren't the problem with these two).

I'm talking about the agreement prior to the sale, the sale was a result of problems with the agreement and attempts to look at renegotiating to bring it inline with EU rules failing.

There were two serious bids, Phoenix and Alchemy, IIRC Alchemy wanted Rover to become a non-volume car maker, which would have cut jobs by 50%, but they pulled out because the cost of making those redundancies would have been more than expected.

Alchemy did actually have a valid business plan though, they pulled out because they found BMW would not have liability towards protecting the company from bankruptcy, and therefore they could not force them to pay for the redundancies.

The shift to the phoenix consortium over restarting negotiations with Alchemy was strongly supported by the unions and the government, even though concerns were raised about the validity of the business plan of the consortium at the time.

 

[Bleek]

Making people redundant has nothing todo with company agility. It's the mindset within the company that can't be changed that causes failure and redundancy.

I appreciate your comment wasn't focused at me [as I'm the last person you need to lecutre on the subject] but a common result of the term 'agile and efficient' is a reduction in workforce.

I by no means agree with this, I merely speaking from experience.

 

[NickK]

I appreciate your comment wasn't focused at me [as I'm the last person you need to lecutre on the subject] but a common result of the term 'agile and efficient' is a reduction in workforce.

True. However what it actually means is that the company has not moved on, stagnated and thus needs to make a radical leap to be where it needs to be and then labels it under "agility and efficiency changes".

On the flip side, a fully internalised and incestuous company of re-educated staff isn't the answer either. Companies need movement to create a flux that generates successes based on new employee experiences and ideas. Everything in balance.

Trouble is it hard with family and the pressure of the job to maintain time to focus on re-educating and move from the doomed area of the job market.

 

[[TW]Fox]

Of course it isn't. But not everyone is cut out to be a business executive, even if they get through uni.

And therefore they will earn lots less money. Simple really.

 

[scorza]

Interesting article on how the Pheonix Five managed to extract what they did: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/robertpeston/

So basically when Pheonix bought Rover the acquired an interest free loan from BMW to keep Rover going. Pheonix then loaned Rover the money but there was interest payable on this loan, therefore while Rover made a loss (exacerbated by this loan) Pheonix would receive a profit for doing sod all basically.

No wonder that this country is in such a state when financial engineering is given greater standing that actual engineering.

 

[Dolph]

Interesting article on how the Pheonix Five managed to extract what they did: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/robertpeston/

So basically when Pheonix bought Rover the acquired an interest free loan from BMW to keep Rover going. Pheonix then loaned Rover the money but there was interest payable on this loan, therefore while Rover made a loss (exacerbated by this loan) Pheonix would receive a profit for doing sod all basically.

No wonder that this country is in such a state when financial engineering is given greater standing that actual engineering.

Perhaps, but it does not change the reason why Rover failed, which would have happened whether they'd had the money straight or not...

Don't take this the wrong way, I have no love for the phoenix five, but in no way did they destroy an otherwise solvent and good business, Rover had not been a strong business for a very long time.