BMW and Range Rover

[warot]

I think they are totally ignoring the rest of us

 

[Imhotep Evil]

No they couldn't. Rolls and Mini are small compared to Land Rover and their other holdings they've had all along. BMW would have been driven out of business or into the hands of another, much larger company if they had kept any part of Rover. They'd already lost like 3 billion if I remember right dealing with trying to get Rover on its feet and even Land Rover's booming sales didn't help BMW's bottom line.

M

So let me get this straight over 4 million money losing car isn't a problem, but for a company half that size just 150 000 to 200 000 is a problem ?!
Or is my math wrong.

Also also they lost 4 billions on the Rover Group, but then again they've also lost until 2003, 2 billion on Rolls Royce.

RR being much smaller in loses is pure BS.

Because when BMW bought RR, they only bought the brand.

So the developement costs of the Phantom + Goodwood factory + (re)building
a dealer network, meant around 2 billions in costs that was before BMW could
sell the car starting with 2003.

And let's not forget the motorcycle division.

As for MINI vs Land Rover, now MINI actually outsells LR, and if we are to belive Deutsche Bank experts, than MINI made more profit than Land Rover
so far.

They (Deutsche Bank) estimated that MINI turned profit in 2003.

That was a big surprise, to say at least.

If you really to dump something in 2000, along with MG-Rover, Rolls Royce would have the no. 1 priority, since they knew back than that developing the new Phantom, alone, would cost ~1.5 billion.
No.2 would have been an uncertain/delayed MINI.

 

[Merc1]

So let me get this straight over 4 million money losing car isn't a problem, but for a company half that size just 150 000 to 200 000 is a problem ?!

No I'm saying that it is LESS of a problem for a larger company, its a problem either way.

Also also they lost 4 billions on the Rover Group, but then again they've also lost until 2003, 2 billion on Rolls Royce.

RR being much smaller in loses is pure BS.

If you say so, but again I'd like to read proof. They just aquired Rolls-Royce and that loss (if there was one) came along with it, total opposite to the Rover mess which had been ongoing for years! Big difference.

Because when BMW bought RR, they only bought the brand.

Then what is this loss you're talking about then?

So the developement costs of the Phantom + Goodwood factory + (re)building
a dealer network, meant around 2 billions in costs that was before BMW could
sell the car starting with 2003.

Ok, and you're point here is what? BMW was healthy enough to do this by then, again a big difference to what was going on with them when they sold Rover.

And let's not forget the motorcycle division.

Know nothing about, never heard anything terrible about financially either.

As for MINI vs Land Rover, now MINI actually outsells LR, and if we are to belive Deutsche Bank experts, than MINI made more profit than Land Rover
so far.

My point exactly, Land Rover is still ILL and BMW wouldn't not have been able to support this from 2000 to 2006 and expand as rapidly as they have.

They (Deutsche Bank) estimated that MINI turned profit in 2003.

That was a big surprise, to say at least.

Not to me, Mini is a hit and the car is much cheaper to develop than a Land Rover.

If you really to dump something in 2000, along with MG-Rover, Rolls Royce would have the no. 1 priority, since they knew back than that developing the new Phantom, alone, would cost ~1.5 billion.
No.2 would have been an uncertain/delayed MINI

.


Well what was done has been done, it is what it is.

M