BMW could sell Rover brand name if Ford acquiesces

[siko]

BMW reaches an agreement to sell the "Rover" brand name

According to a report from Automotive News, BMW has reached an agreement to sell the rights of the Rover brand name. Although there has been no leak concerning the company's name, it is speculated that the main candidates are two Chinese automakers, both of whom are under state control (!). Nanjing Automobile which acquired MG Rover assets and the sportscar brand MG, and Shanghai Automotive (SAIC) owner of design rights to two Rover models including the 75. The newspaper states that a spokesman for BMW confirmed a report in the German financial daily newspaper, Handelsblatt stating, "A binding agreement was made".

Although it seems like a done deal, BMW will need to obtain Ford's consent due to legal issues as the latter owns Land Rover -acquired from the BMW Group a few years ago. Basically, this means that Ford will give its consent only if the future owner of Rover's name strictly avoids any conspicuous connections with SUV vehicles.

I think that Ford should be very, very, very cautious with this one. Can you imagine the surprise on the face of a Ford's Group manager if he sees a Rover LT3 or a Rover Sport in the 2007 Shanghai Motor Show ?

Source: carscoop.blogspot.com/

 

[LaArtist]

Good for BMW..ROVER IS OVER

 

[klier]

Good for BMW..ROVER IS OVER

Not if that Chinese company pours a few billion $ into production of new models and start selling them on the soon to be biggest market in the world (their own)

 

[LaArtist]

yeah that could work..but for europe i think the name rover is doomed..maybe not if they come up with somethin real hot.. wich i doubt they will

 

[ADGvast]

to get the Mini name...that was the only reason

As i remember, when the idea of takeover Rover is becuase of the 4wheel drive LandRover, A top BMW said in a interview, it needs the same amount of $$$ to develop a LandRover kind of 4WD by their own with much more time then acquiscing the Rover group.... but, of cause, MINI is another interesting project for them as well....

 

[EnI]

As i remember, when the idea of takeover Rover is becuase of the 4wheel drive LandRover, A top BMW said in a interview, it needs the same amount of $$$ to develop a LandRover kind of 4WD by their own with much more time then acquiscing the Rover group.... but, of cause, MINI is another interesting project for them as well....

BMW AG plan in early 90's was to become largest premium car maker: so they had plans to acquire Porsche, Land Rover, Mini, Rolls-Royce / Bentley.

Porsche owners set an outrages price - totally out of range for BMW financial capabilities - so the Porsche was no longer a BMW target.

RR / Bentley was not for sale at that time - but in the late 90's when BMW was financially down due Rover debacle - and lost the RR bid to VW. Only the mistake of VW lawyers was a reason BMW AG could bought RR name rights from Rolls-Royce plc (the aero engine maker). So VW & BMW reached an agreemnet that VW would retain Bentley brand, all the factories & sales network, but would sell RR design trademarks (Radiator Grille & Emily to BMW) in exchange for BMW parts delivery till 2003 when BMW got all RR trademarks.

Rover was the most tragic story: owners didn't want to sell LR & Mini only, but the whole Rover package. That was not an option for BMW. So BMW started to develop its own SUV / SAV (X5) and a mini (BMW 1er - but in much different shape than today's 1er!).

But when all the consolidation in car industry begin BMW Bod with approval of Supervisory Board (what a mistake!) decided to buy complete Rover Group after all. Rover was a very ill "English patient" bringing BMW AG to the edge of bankrupcy and hostile takeover (Ford, VW, Toyota). The only solution was to rid Rover for any price - and retaining all the brands rights.

So BMW sold MG brand (along with Austin) with Rover company, and also the LR to Ford (to gain much needed cash for the development projects) - X5 was developed so LR was a bit redundant. While Mini was revived, and 1er project reworked in a 3er Compact substitute. They are now also selling Rover brand rights. Triumph, Dawson, Standard & Riley are still the brands BMW owns, but have not real plans with them - there were some ideas to revive Triumph but ...

Another interesting story: the MINI sporty wagon is coming in the near future - BMW want to call it MINI Traveller but have no rights for "Traveller" name - and now still the search for the current "Traveller" name owners is in progress to buy the rights from them. Also Clubman was considered , but it is a part of Austin / MG rights. Countryman name is not an option since it is not exclusive enough.

 

[Imhotep Evil]

To my knowledge the X5 was started after the Rover Group aquisition.
Also, needed brands that could go were its own brand couldn't, and I don't mean necesarily premium brands.
Also there things that couldn't profetize/know about.
Like the rising pound and the buy out of Chrysler (considered as a partner) by DB AG.
Also their joint venture with RR Plc. was a mess, generating an ~25% (relative to Rover) loses.
And the Rover 75, this is what I don't get, never sold well, despite being a fine car.

 

[EnI]

To my knowledge the X5 was started after the Rover Group aquisition.

Also, needed brands that could go were its own brand couldn't, and I don't mean necesarily premium brands.

Yes, also other bad business decisions & circumstances were reason for BMW AG loss in that time.

X5: the E53 project started in 1993 (1 year before Rover take-over). But the Rover take-over brought LR know-how & some other solutions to X5.

Initial plan in early 90's was to acquire premium brands only: to make BMW a niche car maker: producing only premium cars. But in mid-90's when the consolidation in the car industry started they decided buying Rover is a MUST - due to LR & Mini brands. Rover/MG brand was a part of package - and there was an idea to reposition Rover brand & make it a classic rival to Jaguar (while BMW design had been then already decided to be avant-garde). But there were no enough money for such action.

It was a deviation from the initial plan of BMW being premium car maker only. BMW came back to initial plan with Milberg as CEO, and sticking to it ever since.

Rover Group purchase caused a lot of friction in BMW BoD & SB at that time: the Rover decision was tight, and some were very disappointed by final decision.

 

[Merc1]

I can't imagine what would have happend if BMW wound up buying Porsche. The thought of both company's engineers brainstorming together gives me chills! Could you imagine what they could do together?!?!

M

 

[PanterroR]

I can't imagine what would have happend if BMW wound up buying Porsche. The thought of both company's engineers brainstorming together gives me chills! Could you imagine what they could do together?!?!

M

I'm scared to imagine that...

 

[Imhotep Evil]

Yes, also other bad business decisions & circumstances were reason for BMW AG loss in that time.

X5: the E53 project started in 1993 (1 year before Rover take-over). But the Rover take-over brought LR know-how & some other solutions to X5.

Initial plan in early 90's was to acquire premium brands only: to make BMW a niche car maker: producing only premium cars. But in mid-90's when the consolidation in the car industry started they decided buying Rover is a MUST - due to LR & Mini brands. Rover/MG brand was a part of package - and there was an idea to reposition Rover brand & make it a classic rival to Jaguar (while BMW design had been then already decided to be avant-garde). But there were no enough money for such action.

It was a deviation from the initial plan of BMW being premium car maker only. BMW came back to initial plan with Milberg as CEO, and sticking to it ever since.

Rover Group purchase caused a lot of friction in BMW BoD & SB at that time: the Rover decision was tight, and some were very disappointed by final decision.

To my knowledge, Rover was suposed to be rather morel ike Audi (cheaper, FWD, with more emphasis on comfort/ride vs. track times).
Also the BMWs back then were all conservative, E38, E39, E46 and even E53 in some ways. The e46 and e53 were more succesfull that anticipated, while the e38 and e39 took a serious beating from their MB counterparts, and Audi was closing in. The 5er and 7er basicaly paid the price for thier lack succes outside the USA, thus the shock and awe designs.

So how come BMWs were suposed to be avant-guarde (when they were all conservative and to my knowledge Reitze baned avant-guarde designs) ?!

 

[EnI]

To my knowledge, Rover was suposed to be rather morel ike Audi (cheaper, FWD, with more emphasis on comfort/ride vs. track times).
s.

They wanted to push Rover brand up-market. Yes, still cheaper than BMW, FWD, with classic conservative design: targeting up-coming smaller Jaguar cars, Audis, and Japanese competition: to prevent them to take on BMW - trying to steal their sales with Rover. That was an intention - never realized.

Yet Rover 75 was already in development when BMW AG bought Rover - but.

Also the BMWs back then were all conservative, E38, E39, E46 and even E53 in some ways. The e46 and e53 were more succesfull that anticipated, while the e38 and e39 took a serious beating from their MB counterparts, and Audi was closing in. The 5er and 7er basicaly paid the price for thier lack succes outside the USA, thus the shock and awe design
So how come BMWs were suposed to be avant-guarde (when they were all conservative and to my knowledge Reitze baned avant-guarde designs) ?!

Mind that usually all projects starts approx 6 years before production starts: and final design is chosen approx 3 years before production - while all main technical solutions are decided & developed even earlier.

The decision regarding current BMW design philosophy had already been taken in mid 90's - after the X5 closed the design era of that time. Still until Reitzle was there he was very present in design development - smoothing too radical design ideas: e.g. he strongly opposed the 7er's front & rear, while at the same time he was the initiator of idea for iDrive system. But the decision to go avant-garde was in place. Mind that avant-garde doesn't necessarily mean "ugly".

Also mind that the latest "pre-Bangled" car (X5) designed was picked in very late 1995 - and it had to be a part of BMW design language of that time.