R.I.P Rover?

zzf00l · Post by **zzf00l** » 10 Apr 2005, 12:33

I understand that an 'Administrator' has been appointed not a Receiver, one runs the company till it becomes profitable or can find a buyer, whilst the other disposes of the remaining assets and winds it up. Furthermore durind 'administration' production continues with the suppliers being paid by the Admistarator........ so keep your fingers and toes crossed.

np · Post by np » 10 Apr 2005, 17:01

Well,i hope something can be done to save Rover.If you belive everything you read,it seems the goverment blame Rover,& Rover blame the Goverment.I had 2 Rover 200`s 6 yrs ago.Brand new.I liked them very much.1 was a VI with the VVC 1.8 K series in it.A very good engine.The other was a TD.105 BHP,which in 1999 was good for a diesel.The K series is still used in Caterhams etc.Ok so the car range is dated,with new models due in 2008,but the 75 is a good car,& the MG`s are good.Just have to see what can be done.

madasafish · Post by **madasafish** » 10 Apr 2005, 20:38

Well I understand the cash runs out next week so Administration is likely to be Receivership soon

DervDonkey · Post by **DervDonkey** » 10 Apr 2005, 22:44

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I understand that an 'Administrator' has been appointed not a Receiver<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Merely playing with semantics. Means the same thing in the end, the company is either rescued, broken up or sold complete. An administrator is put in place in order to look after the interests of a company's creditors, and to determine the method which ensures maximum returns for said creditors. The interests of the company itself, or its customers, are irrelevant to this process.

TomH · Post by **TomH** » 11 Apr 2005, 01:23

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by turbolag

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by TomH

shame to see them sink but I don't think they should be propped up anymore. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">What, you mean the same way the French government prop up the firm that made your car?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
That was Renault that was re-nationalised was it not?
Throwing money at Rover as it is will only prolong the inevitable. It is just uncompetetive as it is. You can't expect to run a company which continually makes big losses whilst at the same time contributing little to R'n'D. You won't last long, that's capitalism for you.
The French buy their own cars in larger numbers and export successfully whereas Rover sell ok in their own market but dwindling in the face of modern competition and barely export too.
It is awful the job losses resulting. And rightly I believe the Phoenix bosses are under investigation for their big salaries and pensions so undeserved!

Kowalski · Post by **Kowalski** » 11 Apr 2005, 02:32

There are lots of big companies where the boards are paid regardless of how the company performs. In fact if they do their job badly enough and make the company lose enough money, they're given the good old 7 figure severance package.
In my line of work, if I didn't do my job well I would get fired pretty quickly and there'd be no severance package. It seems in this world ability is rewarded slightly but greed is what gets the big rewards, "shy bairns get nowt" as they say.

np · Post by np » 15 Apr 2005, 00:45

Read in the paper today that NO warranty claims will be carried out,as there is no money in the company to pay for them.A woman had a year old car with a faulty clutch.The dealer rang to cancel the booking,& SHE will have to pay for the repairs!
Also heard on the local radio of a Vauxhall dealer offering 25% off new cars to Rover owners with nearly new cars.I suppose they will offer a very low trade in price(since no warranty)& sell them on for a bigger profit!

jeremy · Post by **jeremy** » 15 Apr 2005, 00:57

Somehow I think the contract to purchase the car was made with the dealer rather than Rover itself - so dealer is liable - what a shame!
Jeremy

np · Post by np » 15 Apr 2005, 01:05

Forgot to add that the artical said the first 2 yrs Rover pay the dealer for claims,then the 3rd year,the dealer pays from their pocket for any claims.Either way,cant see the dealer saying "thats ok,will do the work,& pay for it"!
Also,buyers are flocking to buy new Rovers at discount prices.1 dealer is selling brand new 75 estates,top of the range V6`s for £20k.Saving £7k!!!
Its just a shame new car buyers couldn`t buy them before.Its a bit late now!

Kowalski · Post by **Kowalski** » 15 Apr 2005, 04:52

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by jeremy

Somehow I think the contract to purchase the car was made with the dealer rather than Rover itself - so dealer is liable - what a shame!
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Yes, so she'll get a statutory years warranty and a legal battle to get the clutch sorted out.
Goods must be of merchantable quality, durable and fit for the purpose sold. If her clutch gave up at a pitiful mileage the dealer will have to sort it out.

dnsey · Post by **dnsey** » 15 Apr 2005, 13:31

The local Rover dealer has agreed to honour all warranty claims made on new Rovers sold by them, so they at least are acting honourably.

609 · Post by **609** » 16 Apr 2005, 06:27

Kowalski wrote:
<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Yes, so she'll get a statutory years warranty and a legal battle to get the clutch sorted out.
Goods must be of merchantable quality, durable and fit for the purpose sold. If her clutch gave up at a pitiful mileage the dealer will have to sort it out.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Second part, correct under Sale of Goods act. The goods should be 'as described' as well.
But your rights under the act are that you can bring a case within six years. In fact, you do not need a manufacturer's guarantee. The local Trading Standards Officer will enforce your rights to reasonable quality.

Forth · Post by **Forth** » 18 Apr 2005, 07:51

"The local Trading Standards Officer will enforce your rights to reasonable quality."
Once upon a time, perhaps.... but wouldn't count on that any more, at least where more expensive stuff is concerned. Reckon that just like many of the the pc-jobsworth police focus on easy target camera enforced surveillance and extortion rackets while effectively ignoring more serious stuff, so nowadays the so-called "trading standards" are rather more concerned to protect fatcat ripoff corporate interests from the financial inconvenience (to them) of pirates, than enforcing "rights to reasonable quality"....
But with the weaseling garbage on offer in this present election as an indicator of the state of the country and its administration, it's hardly surprising.

turbolag · Post by **turbolag** » 18 Apr 2005, 15:30

I'm a Po-liceman and before I stand back and read derogatory comments against Police from someone who wouldn't even know how to hold a Monadlock PR24 extedable side handled baton correctly, much less use it, I would expect them to know something whereof they speak, which it would appear you don't.
And if you have a problem with OTT political correctness, then stop electing the government that foists it upon the police, rather than criticising the police for something they would, by and large, rather not have anyway.
any time you fancy a ride along on a Saturday night to see what we really have to waste our time with, then PM me and i'll arrange it.

Forth · Post by **Forth** » 18 Apr 2005, 17:53

"then stop electing the government that foists it upon the police"
Over the years I've certainly tried, but consider the present elections... such a charade that even a judge recently used the term "banana republic".
True, (proper)police who joined years ago resented being used as political gophers. Them I have considerable sympathy for. But where pc-motivated stuff is concerned, well the police nowadays could always try refusing to do it (while dissent is still barely legal) -- but given the political apparachik nature of present day police chiefs maybe that would be futile. "Only obeying orders" etc....
"from someone who wouldn't even know how to hold a Monadlock PR24 extedable side handled baton correctly"
Sorry, but in the present circumstances that hardly instills a sense of security -- given that your political masters are (and there's now no other word for it) the enemy.
Have you noticed that the government's coming equivalent of an FBI will be nominally loyal to the PM/Home Office not the Crown (a very serious constitutional difference, not mere semantics).
Or that the authorities have - wrongly and with deliberate intention to mislead? - presented the "SAS light" as is to be formed as being a descendant of SOE... wonder why? The only possible answer is, btw, extremely disturbing.