From the BBC (updated):
MG Rover, the stricken UK car maker, has said it will appoint administrators for the business later on Friday. The announcement came after negotiations with a possible Chinese investor broke down.
MG Rover’s 6,000 workers in the West Midlands are waiting to find out if the iconic firm will continue making cars.
[ Rover to go into administration ] BBC
MF Analysis: It’s amazing to think back at the mid-nineties when the future seemed so bright for BMW’s English aquisitions, Rover and Land Rover. Yet it only took a few years before everyone was referring to both companies as BMW’s English patient. Now with Land Rover costing Ford hundreds of millions a year and Rover almost bankrupt, the success story of the MINI (especially in the US) seems even more dramatic.
<p>I’ve read where BMW only bought the Rover Group to get MINI, never planning to keep Rover itself. I don’t doubt that.</p>
<p>That doesn’t quite jibe with all the accounts I’ve read. Granted BMW was very interested in the Mini brand when it bought Rover. In fact many at Rover didn’t understand what BMW saw in it. </p>
<p>It’s worth remembering that, when BMW bought Rover, the Mini wasn’t exactly a bright spot for carmaker. It’s numbers were dwindling and it represented old technology to many. Not exactly a poster boy for the “new” British economy. I’ve read that Rover wasn’t far away from pulling the plug altogether around this time.</p>
<p>Maybe BMW or some other company will buy the MG name and release a modern Midget. That would be fun!</p>
<p>I used to design cars for Rover in the ‘80s back in the UK. It’s a sad day when Rover closes its doors, but looked like it was on the cards for some time. When BMW bought Rover, the products and quality, although better, needed some help. And BAE was doing nothing with it. Whatever the motivation, they got access to some good solid brand names, and some very solid design talent. A lot of the work on BMW’s first SUV, the X5, was from the Land Rover team before it was sold off. </p>
<p>I’m also sure the MINI was underway when BMW purchased Rover in 1994. I visited Gaydon in 1996 and they had three full-sized design concepts on display in the lobby then. I’d like to credit them with having the genius of spotting a niche with the new MINI and building a new sub-BMW brand (after all they needed their own Beetle). But I’m sure they never envisaged the success it’s been. But I am surprised they didn’t keep the MG marque though. Would have been a great brand to apply to the Z3 and Z4.</p>
<p>Still it’s a sad day when Rover closes its doors.</p>
<p>Bernd Pischetsrieder had big plans for Rover, even envisioning it as a “sub-premium brand” underneath BMW. He was willing to risk big amounts of BMW capital to see through the rough years of getting Rover back on its feet and allowing BMW to compete in the lower ranks of the auto world. The years of blood-letting though was too much for the Board and Pischetsrieder was sacked. He was bitter as can be expected, as by that time, Rover’s losses had stopped and a turn-around was viewable in the next two to three years. But the Board didn’t care anymore and asked as to what might be salvaged from the deal. Thus, MINI was born as we know it.</p>
<p>Bernd Pischetsrieder, by the way, is now top dog at VW. He was responsible for the acquisition of Rolls Royce as well (while at BMW), purposefully choosing it over Bentley. He has now said that Bentley is everything that Rolls can and will never be. Hahaha…take that for what it’s worth.</p>
<p>Personally, I’ve always considered the Bentley to be classy whereas the Rolls Royce was ostentatious. So in that respect, I believed that VW got the better end of that deal.</p>
<p>It would be sad to see Rover go away. Too many brands have disappeared over the years and most of the remaining ones seem to be the same cars with different badges (ie.: anything 2 brands from GM, Ford/Mercury/Lincoln/Jaguar, etc…).</p>
<p>DanTheMan – interesting info, thanks for sharing. We actually did a story on the MINI prototypes from this period awhile back. You can check it out here: <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.motoringfile.com/2004/06/27/the_mini_concepts_of_the_1990s">The MINI Concpets of the 1990’s</a>.</p>
<p>Rover did have a couple of Mini concepts (the Spiritual & Spiritual2) they were working around this time. However they were nothing like what we know today as the current MINI.</p>
<p>If Mini had remained within Rover, it would be dead. Sales were pathetic, and there was no money being made. The Mini had never had a redesign in 40+ years; only slight cosmetic changes and government-forced changes (like an airbag). Even if Mini was not dead, it would not exist in USA …
The british car companies have always managed to struggle, with quality, unions and foreign competition. Personally I am very surprised that the Rover package made it this far.</p>
<p>I wouldn’t write the obituary for the Rover and MG brands just yet. SAIC is a very smart company with over $30 Billion in cash on hand. They didn’t get that by being stupid. Why should they invest in Rover when they can just let it go under and buy the assets they want, including the brand names, for ten cents on the dollar in the liquidation sale. SAIC isn’t after those ancient factories, tired products and overcapacity. They only want the nameplates.</p>
<p>Wasn’t Longbridge completely re-vamped by BMW in the late 90’s? I believe originaly that was where the MINI was to be built.</p>
<p>it’s always sad to see an icon pass away, and one can’t help but feel for those who’s jobs will be lost. However, no amount of external funding, subsidizing, can save the company unless competent management can be found. Not only new mangagement is required, but a decent product line. Clearly if the company was producing a product the public would buy they wouldn’t be in this spot. When’s the last time Rover produced a new chasis? How do they expect to compete with new ranges from PSA and VW. Even GM produces a better product than Rover’s recent offerings.</p>
<p>The MG’s are all slightly warmed over versions of decade old cars and the SVs are incredible examples of a bad idea gone terribly wrong. an 80k car that can’t compete dynamicly with cars half the price? who besides Rowan Atkinson will buy the thing?</p>
<p>Perhaps i’m too dogmaticly a free-market capitalist, but if you can’t produce a competitive product expect to perish.</p>
<p>Yes, Longbridge was originally the planned site, but BMW estimated it would could more to update the place to modernity than to build a completely new facility.</p>
<p>Matt said: “Perhaps i’m too dogmaticly a free-market capitalist, but if you can’t produce a competitive product expect to perish.”</p>
<p>Which is exactly what I tell my fellow Detroiters when they ask me why I buy BMW.</p>
<p>What a mess. The Rover name is still owned by BMW, but leased to MG/Rover. Land Rover is owned by Ford. SAIC bought the intellectual property rights from Rover and plan on keeping them after backing out of buying the whole company. </p>
<p>Once MG/Rover is in the UK equivalent of bankruptcy, there will be a big “going out of business sale” to strip whatever is left of any value.</p>
<p>Could this be the same future for GM?</p>
<p>Bill, if GM can’t effectively deal with the labor unions and it’s legacy costs i expect them to go down too. But i wouldn’t count out a govt subisdy like chrysler got in the 80’s. there’s a lot of ‘too big to fail’ consideration with GM.</p>
<p>of course if they’d build a car the public would buy without rediculous discounts and financing incentives they wouldn’t be in this position.</p>
<p>I’m personally partial to the old MG’s myself. My dad’s got a ’69 MGB GT that he’s been driving everyday SINCE 1969 WHEN HE BOUGHT IT. My exposure to that little brittish car growing up helped fuel my MINI enthusiasm today. I would love to see a MINI-esque MG revamp and modernization here in the US. Though I wonder if it wouldn’t cannibalize on the MINI market or the BMW Z3/Z4 roadster market, if it sold at all. It’s just too bad, as dad’s MGB is a charming little car. In many ways some of the same characteristicis that make a MINI a great car (lightweight, zippy, great handling, charming design, heritage, and a brief history in the US), could make a modern MG a really fun car to have.</p>
<p>It’s pretty saddening, for me, as I was near Abingdon, the original home of MG, when they were clearing out the buildings and selling all the loose bits they found, while the rest of BL went to hell in a handcart. They never could figure out which cars to keep – MGs and Minis, toss the rest and start some new designs – and were practically screaming to be aquired, even then. They never really tried to make a go of it Stateside unless it was a sportscar. Even then, they sold every MGB they could build, but tossed away their reputation with shoddy Triumphs, sold without enough pre-market development. Abingdon was a symbol of better times, and I very badly wanted the big octagonal MG clock, but lacked the scratch at the time. All the BMC Factory Rally and race cars including Minis, were prepped there, and I hoisted a pint to mourn its passing. Now the Longbridge connection is prolly going the way of all factories, (parking lots or block flats), sniff, so I’ll lift a glass to good Cecil Kimber –</p>
<p>“Stand by your glasses steady, boys,
This world is a world of lies,
Here’s a toast to the dead already,
Hurrah! for the next man to die!”</p>
<pre><code> BCNU,
</code></pre>
<p>Rob in Dago</p>
<p>Rob has it mostly right, and I agree under it’s present guise Rover needs to go. Fact is M.G. (Abingdon) outsold every BL/BMC product (outright) here in the U.S. right to the end of production. This fact was disguised by management to close Abingdon. Not many know the bulk of BL management at the time came from (rival) Triumph’s. </p>
<p>Never automated every M.G. (Abingdon)for 50 years were assembled by hand, and pushed down antiquated assembly lines (similar to Morgan). They still produced more cars per man, per week than most all other factories in the UK including the latest (at the time)Triumph factory.</p>
<p>Still, not satisfied with just closing M.G. Abingdon they (management) had the buildings distroyed, and one of histories greatest factories was lost forever. I could go on, but I digress.</p>
<p>Regards,</p>
<p>Larry C.</p>
<p>The Americans would do anything to protect their industries! Apparently, the British people have no further faith in themselves. British government should make an effort to save the last British carmaker. Britain don’t produce planes nor boats anymore! After the death of Rover, what will be the next step? Will the City be the only source of income for Britain!!!!!
I’m sure that every british citizen would agree to give 1£ to save ROVER (thousands jobs are in danger!).</p>
<p>I think BMW behaved very badly 5 years ago when they pulled out of Rover. I don’t think they wanted to invest the millions that were needed to bring the Longbridge plant up to date.If only they had shown a little more resilience how different things could have been. Sales of Rovers were massively up in continental Europe. UK sales were stagnant but the MINI was around the corner and would have been sold through Rover dealers in this country. If they had stuck with it by now Rover would have new models, the lack of which has been their main downfall.
Incidentally I have a Rover 400 from 2001 and it stacks up well compared to the more modern competition from Ford, Peugeot and Renault that I have also driven.</p>
<p>Ian, Rover’s messing up of the books was a main reason why the Board would have none from Pischetsrieder when he lobbied to keep Rover. The Germans were entirely insulted by Rover’s misdealings and financial misrepresentation.</p>
<p>so Rovers pending bankruptcy is BMWs fault!? why not lay the blame with management where it belongs, or perhaps with Phoenix or SAIC? </p>
<p>i’m glad BMW rid themselves of Rover, otherwise they’d suffer the same fate as Mercedes when they picked up Chysler.</p>
<p>If I remember right? Rover had an independent bord of directors under BMW ownership. Rover could do anything that they wanted and BMW became a cash machine.
I would never own a business that I did’t control. If I’m right, it was a very bad move for BMW from the start and would never have gotten better.
How would you run a business if you knew someone was there to hand you cash????</p>
<p>During the beginning stages of ownership, BMW allowed Rover to function entirely on its own, with its own leadership and management principles. When it soon became apparent that they could not cut it, BMW started sending over technicians, engineers, and management specialists from Munich. These first few turned into hundreds upon hundreds, literally coming and going on a weekly basis. The Rover name was now BMW in sheep’s clothing. It doesn’t take much now to realize why the Rover people became so bitter at the BMW people and vice versa.</p>
<p>After BMW starting plugging gaps and replacing Rover people with BMW people, that is when Rover Co. started seeing the turn-around that Pischetsrieder lobbied the Board with. I totally agree that if the Board had let Rover continue for another 12-24 months, it would have been a success. However, by then, their stomachs had been overly sickened.</p>
<p>Rover has been mis-managed since the 1960’s when it was part of British Leyland. BMW knew that and should have taken full financial control from the start, the main area in which the company was weak. The engineers at Rover had managed to develop some good cars and technology on a shoestring R and D budget. The Land Rover Freelander, for example, was developed without BMW money and became Europes’ best selling SUV for several years. Rover engineers had an enormous input into the new Mini too. I just feel that BMW panicked into buying Rover at a time when VW was buying up car companies left right and centre and then its arch rivals bought Chrysler.</p>
<p>Could anyone wager a guess as to the what will happen to us Rover (216Si) owners, if the bancruptcy goes through?</p>
<p>Does this mean no more parts?</p>