opinions on why Rover went under

[Jackstevens98]

I know there have been lots of discussions on this over the years but what are people's opinions on why ultimately rover went under.

it seems that from the tie up with honda in the 80s they seemed to be on track especially with the r8 200/400 range.

the bubble 200 seems to have continued this trend in 1995 and if you look back at the reviews they are very favourable.

The weak link seems to have been the second generation 400 which was a bit lacklustre in some respects and the sales showed that.

it does seem that almost as soon as bmw took over things started to go down hill. we all know the 75 is a great car so if the cars were not as bad as they are sometimes made out to be I just wonder what they did with the money they did have and why somebody somewhere couldn't have saved the company


I know there are lots of things that would have effected them over the years etc but I am thinking more purely on a physical model and range how did the range of cars lead to the demise of the company when most write ups and sales figures were positive

[MSS]

In my view, the answer is simple. The weak link was the buying public - the lack of national pride and the inability of the buying public to see beyond the end of their noses in relation to jobs, national engineering capabilities etc.

[bl52krz]

Apart from the above points, the reason was because the Phoenix 4 where taking a large amount of money and putting it into their retirement fund. When they were taken over by the Phoenix 4, BMW put a lot of money into a special fund for the company to use if required. This I believe was used but it seems no one knows what on. Also, when BMW sold to the Phoenix 4, I spoke to a gent who through his company experience had met and had knowledge of one in particular of the Phonix4. I said I was glad they had took the company over, and he said that the company would be gone in 5 years.And how long was it around............................................ ...5 years. This is not hearsay, this is true. You make your own conclusions from the above.I also believe that they were banned from being directors for some years after a court case .

[topman]

Not had this one in a while

Put simply they didn't sell enough cars that appealed to enough people. They didn't get their products right. It's that simple.

[victorgte]

The rot started in the 1960’s but the first nail in the coffin was during the 70’s when they launched very poor cars indeed.
Morris Marina
Austin Allegro
1800/2200 later the Princess
Rover SD1
And to top it all the Metro in 1980 which was the last patriotic vehicle that many people bought but found very soon that it dissolved.
That decade made us look elsewhere and the market share they enjoyed simply faded away.
Just in case anyone thinks I’m being over critical I’ve owned all of the above vehicles and whilst poor they have a certain charm......I think.

[neilbaker86]

I don't agree with topmans rather simplistic aproach. I mean ultimately they went under because they didn't make a profit. But why they didn't make a profit isn't because they simply 'didn't get their products right'. Frankly they could've had the best car in the world and large numbers of the British public still wouldn't of bought it because it was tarnished with the history of British Leyland and the cars that went before it.

You need to look back to the demise of all the British Leyland group marques as a whole.

But basically in no order of importance:-

Being asset stripped by everyone who owned the company, taking the bits they wanted and passing the left overs on. (Land Rover to Ford, Mini to BMW etc)

Apathy from the British public who find it more fashionable to own a foreign car and therefore don't support their own industry.

Apathy from the government in not wanting (or being able) to support our own domestically-owned car industry.

Lack of investment in new models (largely caused by the things above)

The tie-ups they had towards the end were also too restrictive, neither Honda nor BMW would allow them to sell in to the US market for instance. And they had to pay both of them royalties for the products they did sell.

In the end the company was simply too small to sustain itself (MG-Rover group), so unless the Pheonix Four could've found an investor it was doomed to failure. The problem is the investor they found knew this, so just bought it from the Administrator instead.

[topman]

Originally Posted by neilbaker86

I don't agree with topmans rather simplistic aproach. I mean ultimately they went under because they didn't make a profit. But why they didn't make a profit isn't because they simply 'didn't get their products right'.

That's ok when it comes to this topic I've never seen anyone change their minds.

It might well be simple answer but often they are the most accurate in such matters.
I think when it comes to this subject there's a lot of heat but not much light.
Often there's a standard list of villains (tick them off as they come in )top gear, Jeremy Clarkson, the EU, the government, the media, the car buying public, pretty much everyone has been blamed at one point or another.

I just think there's a fair bit of clouding the topic with peripheral issues, like the phoenix 4.

But opinions everyone's got em and is entitled to them.

[Darcydog]

Stephen Byers


In a nutshell “Bozo Byers” was the clueless Labour Politician who sold Rover to the Phoenix Consortium rather than the infinitely and demonstrably superior offer from the Alchemy Group.

Byers was heavily criticised for his role in the debacle and the cost to the U.K. Taxpayer. Money that seemed to have disappeared as there was little evidence that the Phoenix Four used these vast sums in the way that was intended.


EDIT

If anyone had any doubts - as well a checking out his role in Rover - Check out his role in the forced Collapse of the privatised Railtrack - over a weekend - and against the wishes of the Rail Regulator.

This led to the Government having to pay compensation after the largest legal class action in U.K. History.

Bozo Byers was forced to admit he had been “untruthful”.

[topman]

https://publications.parliament.uk/p...075/ucm702.htm

Here's Byers reasoning, I make no comment about if he was wrong or right. Just sticking it up so people can read it.

[rustymotor]

Just IMO..

If those old enough can recall buying a British car you started with a base cost then anything extra had to be paid for on top..The Jap car industry put all the extras in to start with and at reasonable cost.

Further dedicated model production lines meant a line for each model when the Japs again used integrated lines meaning several models produced on one production line.

As said a host of rubbish cars badged as rovers didn't help..then the vultures take over, labour had an over whelming majority vote so were able to stand the demise of Rover in terms of lost votes. Goodbye Rover.