BMW and Range Rover

[Michael]

Hmm. Well I have reviewed all posts and I see not reason to close the thread. It's getting bumpy but not to bad.

Imhotep's notion that BMW sold Rover because it was going to have to sell more shares of itself leading to it not being indpendent as it is now, makes a lot of sense to me. However, I have not researched the matter well enough to say that this is the case, I will just say that it sounds reasonable because BMW wanted to preserve its independence. Not only that, BMW was loosing a good share of money.


By the way, Imhotep, I sent you a PM which you never responded to

 

[Imhotep Evil]

Imhotep's notion that BMW sold Rover because it was going to have to sell more shares of itself leading to it not being indpendent as it is now, makes a lot of sense to me.

It's Land Rover they sold, Rover was basicaly given away for 10 pounds.

Yes 10 pounds, plus BMW gave 500 million to the Phoenix 4, just to get rid of it.

Also the idea of BMW separating itself from Rover Group was sugested by Jon Moulton of Venture capital company known as Alchemy.

They also should have bought Rover in the first place, after BMW, but several twists, including politics meant that MG-Rover ended in P4s hands.

By the way, Imhotep, I sent you a PM which you never responded to

Must have forgoten. Something wrong with my internet conection.

 

[Michael]

My apologies I meant to say Land Rover.

 

[Merc1]

It did matter, that was just the main thing.

LR/RR had the biggest potential (revenues and profits for the future).

They didn't sold it because they wanted to, they sold it because it was the only thing they could sell and get a lot of money for.

It was either Land Rover or BMW they had to sell.

And that was after both Wolfgang Reitzle and Bernd Pischetsrieder were gone from BMW..

See again you're confused. Whoever had the biggest potential was never the issue here. Nor did anyone say that BMW sold them off because they wanted to. You keep harping answers to questions that no one ever asked. Period.

Not never, but generaly.
Your thinking that MB was always just a step or two behind BMW is limited/restricted/false

.

NO this is your thinking! You're the one that couldn't accept that a magazine was able to get a SL55 around a track faster than a M6. That is when you wnt off in left field with the Rolls-Royce/Ferrari analogy.

Nope they didn't sold it because it lost money, they sold it because after the BMW car division this (LR) had the biggest potential.

This is BS guy. BMW sold the whole mess of a company because it was a mess and it was costing BMW money period. Now you can play with the company names and divisions, but in the end they sold it all because it a money losing operation. Why that is so hard for you to grasp is beyond me.

And since they couldn't sell BMW, now could they, they sold Land Rover.

This is simply a stupid comment. "They" couldn't sell BMW? Who the hell is "They". "They"= BMW. Why would they even think about selling off BMW to keep sorry Rover?

IT was the Rover car division that was "sold" because it lost money.

Along with Land Rover to Ford. Period. End of Story.

Well until some people get some facts straight, it will probably continue.

There weren't any facts to get straight here. BMW sold off Land Rover and Rover, or whatever you want to call it because it was costing them money. Everyone else here can see that except you because you somehow want to paint the whole thing as some type of strategic/genious BMW decision when it was really a common sense decision to get rid of Dead Weight which BTW is what Land Rover has become under Ford - still a money losing operation and the "Rover Car Group" as you love to put it.....well we know what happend to them.

M

 

[Imhotep Evil]

See again you're confused. Whoever had the biggest potential was never the issue here. Nor did anyone say that BMW sold them off because they wanted to. You keep harping answers to questions that no one ever asked. Period.

God you just don't get it, do you.
They sold it (Land Rover) because they need it money.

This is BS guy. BMW sold the whole mess of a company because it was a mess and it was costing BMW money period. Now you can play with the company names and divisions, but in the end they sold it all because it a money losing operation. Why that is so hard for you to grasp is beyond me.
.....................................................................................................
BMW sold off Land Rover and Rover, or whatever you want to call it because it was costing them money.
Everyone else here can see that except you because you somehow want to paint the whole thing as some type of strategic/genious BMW decision when it was really a common sense decision to get rid of Dead Weight which BTW is what Land Rover has become under Ford - still a money losing operation and the "Rover Car Group" as you love to put it.....well we know what happend to them.

Nope, let me brake it down for you:

Rover Group:

1. Land Rover/RR sold to Ford for ~ 2 billions, to get the desperately need it money.

2. MG-Rover car division was given away along with 500 millions to the Phoenix 4 for 10 punds.

3. MINI / Coweley(Oxford) kept by BMW.

4. The Rover, Riley, Triumph (and obviously MINI) brands/registered trademarks were kept by BMW.

5. So basicaly BMW separated itself in one way or another from the former
Rover Group/parts (Rover, MG, LR/RR), but never separated itself 100% (MINI/Oxford,+ some brands).

6. It was never my intension to portray BMW as some sort genious/strategic maker.
- If you would have bothered to red one of my previous posts, you would have realized that the idea of the getting rid of Rover car division was sugested by Jon Moulton (of Alchemy).
- He also sugested that BMW would not need Land Rover either.

This is simply a stupid comment. "They" couldn't sell BMW? Who the hell is "They". "They"= BMW.

1. The shareholders/board of director/administration council and first and foremost the Quand family, witch refused categoricaly.

Why would they even think about selling off BMW to keep sorry Rover?

1. Selling, at least partialy BMW/shares, was because BMW desperately need it cash to develop new models/sustain the company.
2. Speculations were that GM, Ford, VW or even Fiat would buy, at least partialy, BMW.

So in conclusion:

Land Rover was sold, first and foremost, because BMW need it money, not because it was some financial cancer that need it to be removed.

Since BMW couldn't/wouldn't borrow money nor sell its independence, it was the only choice.

 

[Merc1]

God you just don't get it, do you.
They sold it (Land Rover) because they need it money..

You just don't get it either. If Land Rover was making money they would have kept it. Land Rover hasn't made a profit in years and stil doesn't do much for Ford that is why BMW sold it, IT WAS COSTING THEM TOO MUCH MONEY TO KEEP THE ENGLISH PATIENT. You're the one that doesn't get it!

Nope, let me brake it down for you:

Rover Group:

1. Land Rover/RR sold to Ford for ~ 2 billions, to get the desperately need it money.

THEY SOLD IT BECAUSE IT WAS A MONEY LOSING OPERATION THAT WOULD HAVE RUINED BMW. PERIOD.

2. MG-Rover car division was given away along with 500 millions to the Phoenix 4 for 10 punds.

WHO CARES!

3. MINI / Coweley(Oxford) kept by BMW.

AGAIN, NOT GERMAINE TO THE ISSUE HERE.

4. The Rover, Riley, Triumph (and obviously MINI) brands/registered trademarks were kept by BMW.

AGAIN, DID NOT DISPUTE THIS, AND KNEW THIS FROM YEARS AGO WHEN IT ACTUALLY HAPPENED.

5. So basicaly BMW separated itself in one way or another from the former
Rover Group/parts (Rover, MG, LR/RR), but never separated itself 100% (MINI/Oxford,+ some brands).

YOU'RE SAYING THE SAME THING OVER AND OVER AGAIN. CHANGE THE RECORD.

6. It was never my intension to portray BMW as some sort genious/strategic maker.
- If you would have bothered to red one of my previous posts, you would have realized that the idea of the getting rid of Rover car division was sugested by Jon Moulton (of Alchemy).
- He also sugested that BMW would not need Land Rover either.

AGAIN, IF YOU HAD BOTHERED TO READ MY PREVIOUS POSTS YOU HAVE KNOWN FROM THE START THAT NONE OF THEM MATTERED AS TO WHAT I SAID IN THE BEGINNING. GETTING RID OF LAND ROVER WAS DONE BECAUSE IT WAS LOSING MONEY PLAIN AND SIMPLE. OF COURSE A COMPANY AS SMART AS BMW WOULD SAY JUNK IT WHEN ITS COSTING THEM BILLIONS OF DOLLARS A YEAR FOR A ANTIQUATED BRAND LIKE LAND ROVER. DUH.

So in conclusion:

Land Rover was sold, first and foremost, because BMW need it money, not because it was some financial cancer that need it to be removed.

Since BMW couldn't/wouldn't borrow money nor sell its independence, it was the only choice.

[/QUOTE]

BULL, PROVE IT WITH A PRESS RELEASE OR OFFICIAL STATEMENT FROM BMW. THEY SOLD IT BECAUSE IT WAS LOSING MONEY AND WOULD HAVE DONE GREAT FINANCIAL HARM TO BMW, A SMALLER COMPANY THAT CAN'T AFFORD TO KEEP AN OLD MONEY-LOSING BRAND LIKE LAND ROVER ON THEIR BOOKS.

YOU'RE TRYING TO PAINT THIS OUT TO BE THAT THEY SOLD A PRIZE OF A BRAND TO GET CASH WHEN THE BRAND IN QUESTION HAS BEEN A MONEY LOSER FOR YEARS AND YEAR. IF ROVER WAS SUCH A GOOD BRAND THAT WAS SO RIPE FOR SALE THEY WOULD HAVE GOTTEN MORE FOR IT THAN THEY DID. SURE BMW SOLD IT TO PROTECT THEIR INDEPENDENCE BECAUSE IF THEY HAD KEPT IT THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN FINANCIALLY RUINED. NOW YOU CAN TWIST IT AROUND BY SAYING THAT THEY DID IT RAISE CASH ALL YOU LIKE, BUT ALONG WITH THAT PURPOSE THEY WERE EFFECTIVELY THROWING THE BABY OUT WITH THE BATHWATER. KILLING TWO BIRDS WITH ONE STONE. PERIOD.

M

 

[Zafiro]

sorry but I have no idea who is correct, Merc or Imoptep. It feels like its just you two arguing in this thread.

 

[Imhotep Evil]

Really kid, how old are you ?!

Land Rover wasn't the english pacient. They were one the brighter spots of the Rover Group period.

What BMW couldn't realy sustain was the Rover car division loses.

It's the Rover car division that was the real english pacient.

Land Rover was considered a prize, because it had the biggest/only potential of any Rover Group division.

In theory, with the new line developed under BMW, it should have becomed imediatly (highly) profitable.

Some believed that Land Rover was actualy profitable.

Add to that the fact that the Freelander was Europe's best selling SUV.

That's why that got that amount of money for it.

As oposed to the Rover car division who was given away.

And as I constanly repeteat it al this happened after both Wolfgang Reitzle and Bernd Pischetsrieder were gone from BMW.

Neither of witch would have agreed.

 

[Merc1]

The problem here is that you're not looking at everything when it comes them selling Land Rover. BMW is to small of a company to pin their hopes on a money-losing operation such as Land Rover because they have great potential. WHAT PART OF THAT DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND? BMW isn't GM, Ford, Toyota or DCX, companies that have (or had) enough money exploit the potential of brand with a great image, but one that was also losing money hand over fist. LAND ROVER WASN'T MAKING A PROFIT THEN AND NOR ARE THEY NOW. So you're theory about Land Rover being the Jewel of the Rover group simply doesn't make any sense. IT IS COMPLETLY LUDACRIS TO SAY THAT A PART OF THE ROVER GROUP THAT WASN'T MAKING A PROFIT WAS THE JEWEL RELATIVE TO THE OTHER PARTS THAT WERE LOSING EVEN MORE MONEY, WHICH IS WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, ITS ABSURD ITS SPECIOUS.

Some believed that Land Rover was actualy profitable.

Add to that the fact that the Freelander was Europe's best selling SUV.

That's why that got that amount of money for it.

As oposed to the Rover car division who was given away.

BELIEVED? THAT IS HARDLY A FACT THERE. FACTS PLEASE. YOU CAN BELIEVE THAT WORLD IS AT PEACE, DOESN'T MEAN IT IS TRUE. FACTS ON LAND ROVER'S PROFITABILITY PLEASE BECAUSE ALL THE PRESS CLIPPING SAY THEY'VE BEEN LOSING MONEY FOR YEARS UP UNTIL JUST THIS YEAR, MEANING THEY WERE CERTAINLY LOSING MONEY BACK IN THE DAYS OF BMW OWNERSHIP. BESTSELLING DOESN'T MEAN SQUAT. GM IS THE BIGGEST, BEST SELLING CAR COMPANY IN THE WORLD AND THEY ARE DEEP IN THE WHOLE. SALES DON'T MEAN ANTHING. PORSCHE THE LITTLE ITTY BITTY COMPANY MAKES MONEY PER CAR THAN EVEN TOYOTA AND THEY SELL A WHOLE LOT LESS. BASIC COMMON SENSE TELLS US THAT JUST BECAUSE YOU SELL A LOT IT DOESN'T MEAN YOU'RE MAKING MONEY!

Sure in THEORY Land Rover would have become profitable under BMW, but the problem is that again you fail to realize that a smallish company like BMW couldn't afford to take that much of a risk on a sick brand like Land Rover. All this about what would have or should have happened are irrelevant about why they sold it off, it was losing money. There are lots of prized brands that flirt with financial trouble year in and year out, and nearly all of them are held by much larger companies with deep pockets. BMW didn't have the pocket to support LAND ROVER, a concept you can't seem to grasp.


Again I didn't dispute when the sale of Rover happened or who was at or gone from BMW when it happened - AGAIN IRRELEVEANT GARBLE.

M

 

[Beemer B773ER]

Six in one basket, half a dozen in the other.

Seems like you guys are arguing over something rather small here.

Imotep's arguing that LR/RR was profitable, but because BMW was very low on money, they decided to sell LL/RR to get a cash injection.

On the other hand, Merc1 is saying that LR/RR was not being profitable (or had little potential for being highly profitable), and that BMW sold off LR/RR not for the reason of a cash injection, but to get rid of a money-losing brand.

Does it really matter which explaination is correct? In the end, we know what happened. LR/RR ended up in Ford's hands, Mini stayed at BMW, and the other Rover subsidiaries,...well, they don't really matter since they're pretty much dead and buried now.

Is there really anything to argue here ? How about the both of you DISCUSS how LR/RR performed under BMW and compare its performance under the Ford umbrella? .. IMO, that would be a very interesting and informing read seeing if (and how) LR/RR has truely transformed into a more profitable brand.

Please considered that guys.

 

[Imhotep Evil]

Look little boy, here's what you don't understand.

Land Rover was sold because, nobody would pay 1.85 billion pounds on Rover car operation/MG-Rover or MINI.

BMW could have kept Land Rover had it not been for the Rover car operation
loses.

In fact if BMW couldn't keep Land Rover who was supost to turn in profits somewhere between 2000 to 2002 it would have most certaintly not been able to keep MINI, who was only suposed to become profitable by 2007.

Simply put, getting read of MINI would have been a (far) greater priority than Land Rover.

Another thing you don't seem to understand is that alltough BMW is smaller,
it actually has bigger profits that enyone else in Germany.

In recent years BMW car division sustained both MINI, Rolls royce and the motorcycle division, and while all of them made loses, the company was higly profitable.

As for GM and Ford, their financial power is a joke compared to BMW.

BMW isn't that small.

 

[Merc1]

Look little boy, here's what you don't understand.

Land Rover was sold because, nobody would pay 1.85 billion pounds on Rover car operation/MG-Rover or MINI.

BMW could have kept Land Rover had it not been for the Rover car operation
loses..

And yet for all your petty insults, they didn't keep it because it was a money losing operation. Period. Land Rover wasn't making money either the proof is that they still DON'T many years later. If they had been profitable then BMW would have kept them. Why this is so hard for you to comprehend is beyond me. Now if you have proof that Land Rover was profitable then by all means please present it. Everyone in the free world with common sense knows why BMW got rid of Land Rover except you.

In fact if BMW couldn't keep Land Rover who was supost to turn in profits somewhere between 2000 to 2002 it would have most certaintly not been able to keep MINI, who was only suposed to become profitable by 2007.

More speculative BS.

Simply put, getting read of MINI would have been a (far) greater priority than Land Rover.

Simply, put who the hell cares? It doesn't pertain to the issue and unless you worked for BMW you don't know any of this for fact. Now if you have it writing, please post it.

Another thing you don't seem to understand is that alltough BMW is smaller,
it actually has bigger profits that enyone else in Germany.

And what you don't understand is that by BMW being smaller means that they can't sustain loses over an extended period of time like GM, Ford or DCX. See again, you miss the point by a country mile. We all know that BMW is profitable and that they make more than some larger companies, but let them go a year or so without making money and see what happens. Mercedes isn't making money right now and there has been no hiccup in their model offensive, BMW couldn't do that same thing if they kept a money burning Land Rover.

In recent years BMW car division sustained both MINI, Rolls royce and the motorcycle division, and while all of them made loses, the company was higly profitable.

Only partly true and this only underlines my point. BMW is large enough to sustain losses at Rolls Royce and Mini, both of which range from smaller to WAY smaller than BMW. See how that works? Land Rover wasn't as small as Rolls or Mini and thus BMW could't support those type of loses. I don't recall Mini losing money either, only Rolls, but I'm sure you'll have the facts on that too, not speculation.

As for GM and Ford, their financial power is a joke compared to BMW.

Right now this is true, but when these companies were on top of their game they were and can print money, much more of it than BMW ever will, that was the point.

BMW isn't that small.

Compared to Ford, GM, DCX they sure as hell are - again you missed the point. BMW can't afford missteps like Rover and remain profitable and independent. They aren't GM, Ford, Toyota, etc, that was the point. They don't operate on that scale, or at least during the time they had Rover, they didn't.

M

 

[Imhotep Evil]

Land Rover wasn't making money either the proof is that they still DON'T many years later. If they had been profitable then BMW would have kept them. Why this is so hard for you to comprehend is beyond me. Now if you have proof that Land Rover was profitable then by all means please present it. Everyone in the free world with common sense knows why BMW got rid of Land Rover except you.

1.

Ford's Premier Automotive Group (PAG), which includes Volvo, Jaguar, Land Rover, and Aston Martin, reported a pretax profit, excluding special items, of $163 million for the first quarter, compared with a pretax loss of $55 million for the same period in 2005. Ford executives say Volvo, Land Rover, and Aston Martin are currently profitable on an operating basis, which means that Jaguar continues to drag down the premium and luxury car unit's results.

2. It doesn't matter if Land Rover was profitable, it matters is that people belved it would soon become profitable, that's why they poured a vast amount of money and techology in it.
You still don't understand that the big drag was the car division/operation and not Land Rover.

3. And all I can say is :
Selling a, belived, soon to be profitable Land Rover, instead of MINI/Cowley + RR + Hams Mill is pure BS.

4. When I said BMW isn't that small, I didn't said it's as big as GM, Ford or DCX.

BMW AG is about half the size of VW AG as far as revenues go, and even a little more then half as far as assets go.

Now please stop with this BS.

 

[Zafiro]

Imhotep Evil, no need to call members little boys. Keep it civilized.

Question to you both, do you want me to lock the thread? I only need one yes and I will do it , so what do you guys say?

 

[Merc1]

2. It doesn't matter if Land Rover was profitable, it matters is that people belved it would soon become profitable, that's why they poured a vast amount of money and techology in it.
You still don't understand that the big drag was the car division/operation and not Land Rover..

You still don't get that BMW couldn't afford to wing it by keeping any part of Rover. BMW is too smart of a company to keep an English Patient like Land Rover and hope that they become profitable one day. Period. All this about what they believed and what not is the BS and BMW doesn't deal in that type of nonsense. Ford is still struggling with Land Rover to this day, do you think BMW would have had the cash reserves to deal with Land Rover all this time? No!

YOU DON'T GET IT, LAND ROVER WASN'T MAKING ANY MONEY EITHER. BMW SAID AS MUCH WHEN THEY SOLD IT OFF. IF LAND ROVER WAS MAKING MONEY THEY MOST LIKELY WOULD HAVE KEPT IT. THE PROOF IS THAT LAND ROVER STILL STRUGGLES TO THIS DAY TO TURN A PROFIT.

3. And all I can say is :
Selling a, belived, soon to be profitable Land Rover, instead of MINI/Cowley + RR + Hams Mill is pure BS.

No idea as to what you're talking about here. It would seem to me that BMW has made a much better go of it with Mini compared to Ford with Land Rover. Now please why don't you give us the grand explanation behind why Mini is a success and Ford is still dumping money into Land Rover only to barely make a profit. BMW did the right thing getting rid of the whole Rover/Land Rover mess.

4. When I said BMW isn't that small, I didn't said it's as big as GM, Ford or DCX.

BMW AG is about half the size of VW AG as far as revenues go, and even a little more then half as far as assets go.

Again, I have no idea as to what you're disputing here. BMW being half the size of VW only proves my point. VW has the money to deal with a money loser like Land Rover, BMW doesn't which is why they sold it.

Now please stop with this BS.

You should follow your own advice here because you seem to be spinning in circles about what BMW believed and what not. The FACTS ARE THAT BMW SOLD ROVER AND LAND ROVER BECAUSE IT WAS LOSING MONEY!

M

 

[SDNR]

Merc1 and Imhotep Evil,

I cannot understand why two smart guys like yourselves are having this stupid "bitch fight" ......why don't you PM this argument to each other ...I doubt anybody else is reading your posts any longer.




.........yes I know I'm being a bit hypocritical, God knows I've had a few petty arguments of my own on this forum in the past ...but seriously -- you guys are obviously never going to agree.

 

[PanterroR]

Merc1 and Imhotep Evil,

I cannot understand why two smart guys like yourselves are having this stupid "bitch fight" ......

Bingo!!! Just what i've already said and what i wanted to say again. C'mon, guys, no need for this really...

 

[Top Secret]

Oh goody! I love a pissing contest from time to time. Keep it going boys!

 

[Imhotep Evil]

No idea as to what you're talking about here. It would seem to me that BMW has made a much better go of it with Mini compared to Ford with Land Rover. Now please why don't you give us the grand explanation behind why Mini is a success and Ford is still dumping money into Land Rover only to barely make a profit.

Nobody know why.

MINI sales should have been, at best, only half, and wasn't supose to make a profit until, at best 2007.

Land Rover on the other hand should have become, (quite) profitable, between 2000 and 2002.

MINI was tought to be compared to Land Rover, insegnificant.

Probably the fact that Land Rover was considered the crown jewel and the political, union presure probably paid a part too, into seling Land Rover since BMW didn't wanted to have a cherry picker/asset stripper image in the UK.

Why has MINI done so much better and Land Rover so much worse, than anticipated is still a big question.

And back then, in 2000, nobody in their right minds would have chosed MINI over Land Rover.

Nobody, that is, apart from the Quandt family, who influenced or fired every one opposing the split.

VW has the money to deal with a money loser like Land Rover, BMW doesn't which is why they sold it.
M

So let me get this straight, VW AG, twice a big as BMW AG, could afford to keep a money losing VW brand/operation/car division + Seat + Lamborghini + Bugatti.

So VW could afford to keep several brands selling over 4 million money losing vehicles, but BMW couldn't keep a tought soon to be profitable Land Rover
who sold between 150 000 to 200 000 vehicles ?!

But BMW couldn't keep a tought soon to be profitable Land Rover, but kept money losing MINI + RR+ Hams Mill + motorcycle division ?!

 

[Merc1]

Nobody know why.

MINI sales should have been, at best, only half, and wasn't supose to make a profit until, at best 2007.

Land Rover on the other hand should have become, (quite) profitable, between 2000 and 2002.

Not disputing that, never did. My point was that BMW couldn't afford to take that chance. They'd already been losing money owning Rover in the first place and there is NO evidence that Land Rover was profitable then either, only that they didn't lose was much money as Rover.

MINI was tought to be compared to Land Rover, insegnificant.

Maybe so, but BMW has made just as much a success out of Mini as Ford has Land Rover, no clear advantage there on either side.

Why has MINI done so much better and Land Rover so much worse, than anticipated is still a big question.

I don't know, but BMW couldn't have sustained Land Rover this long, like the formerly deep-pocketed Ford Motor Company.

And back then, in 2000, nobody in their right minds would have chosed MINI over Land Rover.

Score one for BMW then. Their radical thinking has paid off IMO. Mini is the only premium small car to make it in the U.S. BMW's own small car the 318Ti flopped as did Mercedes' C230 "Coupe", nee hatchback. The jury is still out on the Aud A3.

So let me get this straight, VW AG, twice a big as BMW AG, could afford to keep a money losing VW brand/operation/car division + Seat + Lamborghini + Bugatti.

Yes because VW's cash reserves and profits were larger than BMW's back then. BMW actually lost money messing around with the Rover Group.

So VW could afford to keep several brands selling over 4 million money losing vehicles, but BMW couldn't keep a tought soon to be profitable Land Rover
who sold between 150 000 to 200 000 vehicles ?!

The problem with this statement is that the profitable part wasn't a fact at time and was only a "thought" and that brings me back to BMW vs. VW, one is much larger and able to absorb losses and the other isn't.

But BMW couldn't keep a tought soon to be profitable Land Rover, but kept money losing MINI + RR+ Hams Mill + motorcycle division ?

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