Blue Oval Staff Posted August 16, 2006 Share Posted August 16, 2006 Click here for the article Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
igor Posted August 16, 2006 Share Posted August 16, 2006 I do not think there is an artcle out there that is more tortured and more nonsensual that this. Fields did say that (quoting someone else0< but immediately before he said (circa) We have no trouble funding out PD - our new products are well funded, but if we needed more money ... and what follows is the piece quoted by Freep. The rest is pure rubbish as well.. I love Analysts without guidance... IF Ford said - We will sell JAg, Analysts are on their home turf, andwould say Yay and Nay .. they know how to do that.. but if Ford simply announces hiring of a guy who previously did mergers and acquisitions, they are lost .. they do not know where to start, they are too lazy to really run the numbers and research the details of the workings of FoMoCo ... the results are like Chinken without a head ... they are stupid and useless and pathetic. Igor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2005Explorer Posted August 16, 2006 Share Posted August 16, 2006 IDIOT GOSH! "If they should get rid of something, they should get rid of Volvo," said Gerald Meyers, a professor of management at the University of Michigan and the former chairman and chief executive of American Motors. "Volvo is easiest to sell." Yeah...lets just get rid of the one company that has actually IMPROVED our safety reputation...or the company we have new sedans based on...and more on the way...the company that has shared technology like RSC...yep...rip those safety features off now. Common Mr. AMC, we know EXACTLY why American Motors was a FAILURE...you were running it!!! If someone from the former American Motors Corporation tells you how to run an Auto business...run away and never look back! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCK Posted August 16, 2006 Share Posted August 16, 2006 Ford has to make the brands competitive, they simply don't. do it to most of their products and sit and wonder why theytheir sales tumble. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnyb82 Posted August 16, 2006 Share Posted August 16, 2006 Ford has to make the brands competitive, they simply don't. do it to most of their products and sit and wonder why theytheir sales tumble. Perhaps this comes from the fact that they have so many different brands to defend. If things were simpler and their attention less dispersed, then maybe product will improve. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kpc655 Posted August 16, 2006 Share Posted August 16, 2006 Kill Merc, bundle Jag with land rover and dump em. Couldn't have said it better myself..although i tried. http://www.blueovalforums.com/forums/index...=4628&st=40 Ford's got its hand in too many cookie jars. Between Ford, Volvo AM and Mazda they've got plenty of models to compete. Ford lacks focus due to trying to juggle too many vehicles and brands. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robertlane Posted August 16, 2006 Share Posted August 16, 2006 IDIOT GOSH! "If they should get rid of something, they should get rid of Volvo," said Gerald Meyers, a professor of management at the University of Michigan and the former chairman and chief executive of American Motors. "Volvo is easiest to sell." Yeah...lets just get rid of the one company that has actually IMPROVED our safety reputation...or the company we have new sedans based on...and more on the way...the company that has shared technology like RSC...yep...rip those safety features off now. Common Mr. AMC, we know EXACTLY why American Motors was a FAILURE...you were running it!!! If someone from the former American Motors Corporation tells you how to run an Auto business...run away and never look back! Yeah, getting advice from the former chairman of American Motors isn't better than getting it from Jac :titanic: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted August 16, 2006 Share Posted August 16, 2006 1) Ford doesn't need cash. They have more cash than GM 2) Ford paid $6B for Volvo, they should sell it for $5? 3) Ford has not lost $10B on Jag. Total investments in Jag are in the $6B neighborhood, including purchase price. Comparable to Volvo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
630land Posted August 16, 2006 Share Posted August 16, 2006 NO way should Volvo or the share Mazda be sold at all!!! Merc make $$, why do they say kill it? Is it because it isn't to their 'import flavor taste'? Yeah the former AMC quote whore again. How much did he get? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edstock Posted August 16, 2006 Share Posted August 16, 2006 The view seems to be that Jag is in a terminal dive. I think that's premature, as they have committed money already for what seems to be a big part of the solution. There's a new S and a re-skinned XJ coming, probably as 2K8 MY. The new sports cars seem to be selling fine, so if the fix for the 2 major, long-established models is about to be launched, why not think about what to do with the X-type, instead of planning the funeral? If those 2 sedans tank, then sell it to the Koreans. If they are successful, then the X-type problem can be dealt with. I would like to see an unabashedly de-contented (lightness is critical) RWD 2-seat successor to the XK-120-30-40-50 series, roadster ragtop only, with the new I-6 and the slickest suspension they can put under an aluminum chassis, if possible. Doing a roadster should lower costs to S-type levels, maybe less, relative to the extra cost of a closed greenhouse. Think of a Jensen-Healey with 2K6 tech and of course, better looking. One reason they should contemplate doing it, is that the cost of racing one in SCCA-type regional racing would be far lower than any of the V-8's. Long-term, this gets the name in front of the hard-core supporters, and ultimately makes the S and XJ easier sells. Another reason is if gasoline jumps to $5+ per gallon say 18 to 24 months from now, the V-8 sportscars might become 'slow-sellers'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
03 LS Posted August 16, 2006 Share Posted August 16, 2006 I suspect Leet, who is/will be Ford's York/Kerkorian, will come back not recomending selling any assets (no need for more cash right now), but pushing for forming an alliance with somebody, most probably Honda (my guess). However, Ford family will have to give up some control. 1st of all, any "good" alliance will improve Ford's long term viability, thus buy some time for turning things around. 2nd, why Honda. Ford and Honda are match made in heaven. Product wise they complement each other perfectly. Cost savings wise, Honda/Ford (or Honda/Ford/Mazda), compare to Ford/Mazda, it has much more potential due to Honda's much bigger volume than Mazda. 3rd, why Honda wants to do it. 1) Honda can benifit greatly from this alliance, too. 2) If Ford gives up some control, to make this an equal partnership, Honda can remain mostly independent, and still gain help (much needed) in its growth area, i.e. v8, compact truck, large/luxury rwd cars. 3) Toyota is breathing on both necks. This is the only way (or better way) to fend off 'yota's onslaught for both companies. BTW, those "analysts" have no clue. That's why Leet is hired and not them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mustang84isu Posted August 16, 2006 Share Posted August 16, 2006 How about this for a thought...don't kill anything. Merc as a brand is doing fine...I don't know why so many people have such an obssession with axing Mercury. The cars sell to people that don't want a Ford, and they probably actually make a profit since they're little more than higher trim levels. Jag will be doing better when some fresher product comes out. The guy who said to sell Volvo is a moron. End of story. The more brands Ford axes/sells, the lower the market share dips, making recovery even harder. Lincoln-Merc dealers will go belly-up, and they'll spend billions phasing out a brand that is putting along just fine. Give them a freaking chance to develop some product first and see how it does before you start sharpening the old hatchet. Ford is a a large company...and turning these brands around isn't going to happen overnight. There's this attitude today that everything should happen overnight...no one has any patience anymore. As long as Ford continues to bring out products that produce a profit and taking little steps at a time to regain market share, they will be fine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2b2 Posted August 16, 2006 Share Posted August 16, 2006 (edited) ...I would like to see an unabashedly de-contented (lightness is critical) RWD 2-seat successor to the XK-120-30-40-50 series, roadster ragtop only, with the new I-6 and the slickest suspension they can put under an aluminum chassis, if possible. Doing a roadster should lower costs to S-type levels, maybe less, relative to the extra cost of a closed greenhouse. Think of a Jensen-Healey with 2K6 tech and of course, better looking. :yup: Yup. Have an XK2 and XK4. ...Merc make $$, why do they say kill it? Is it because it isn't to their 'import flavor taste'? "Wait! there are two more words..." Edited August 16, 2006 by 2b2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnyb82 Posted August 16, 2006 Share Posted August 16, 2006 (edited) 1) Ford doesn't need cash. They have more cash than GM 2) Ford paid $6B for Volvo, they should sell it for $5? 3) Ford has not lost $10B on Jag. Total investments in Jag are in the $6B neighborhood, including purchase price. Comparable to Volvo. While there are plenty of good reasons to not sell Volvo, past money spent on that or any other brand are not good ones. Sunk costs should be irrelevant to any business decision. Edited August 16, 2006 by johnnyb82 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ANTAUS Posted August 17, 2006 Share Posted August 17, 2006 I'll say it, as I have said it before... All these "analysts" throw this garbage out there... so when the issue happens, "IF" it happens, then they will say "OH I remember 25 years ago, I first said how Ford would be wise to sell _____" And that is there 2 minutes of fame...some mental, whack-off fantasy they composed, to please their editor for a daily paper. This is one of them... These people NEED to be held accountable. They only get the positive remarks when something does happen they foresee...no one takes their bad record of predictability when it fails. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted August 17, 2006 Share Posted August 17, 2006 While there are plenty of good reasons to not sell Volvo, past money spent on that or any other brand are not good ones. Sunk costs should be irrelevant to any business decision. Why? Aston Martin and Land Rover are profitable. Once upon a time Jaguar had a proven strategy, of low volume high profit vehicles manufactured at a single facility (assembly work at Browns Lane was largely a token exercise, carried out in the fine British tradition of upholding tradition). Some idiot at Ford decided to screw that up in a vain attempt to turn Jaguar into BMW. It is oh so easy to trace a direct line from the purchase of Jaguar to its present state of somewhat faltering recovery. The reality is far more convoluted. Ford spent a fortune on new product at Jaguar, almost immediately after acquisition. They spent a fortune on Castle Bromwich (worthwhile) and Browns Lane assembly (not smart). They turned the 21 year old XJS into the still beautiful XK8, and turned the ungainly and ergonomically nightmarish XJ6 into the new XJ8. They gave Jaguar a new V8, new transmissions (replacing three-speed GM hydromatics). They replaced lousy electronics with quality units, and in short, spent a fortune bringing the XJs from 1978 to a beautiful if still somewhat archaic modernity. They planted Jaguar solidly on the ground with quality product, new powertrains, new bodies, new manufacturing facilities, and a road to profitability that would--in the near term--still require some Ford assistance on new product development, as the XK8 and XJ8 were still in need of totally new architectures. In short, things looked good for the cat, under a strategy that is not too distant from the strategy that Fields put in place before being recalled to Dearborn. Ford had, in the space of about 7-8 years, dramatically improved Jaguar and put it on the road to health and happiness. And then, for entirely unaccountable reasons, well sorry, out of shortsighted greed, Jaguar was steered off track and into the woods. Ford has a certain moral obligation to at least undo the damage that they did to Jaguar before they sell it off. And, frankly, once they've seen it through, they've no cause to sell it off Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnyb82 Posted August 17, 2006 Share Posted August 17, 2006 Why? Aston Martin and Land Rover are profitable. Once upon a time Jaguar had a proven strategy, of low volume high profit vehicles manufactured at a single facility (assembly work at Browns Lane was largely a token exercise, carried out in the fine British tradition of upholding tradition). Some idiot at Ford decided to screw that up in a vain attempt to turn Jaguar into BMW. It is oh so easy to trace a direct line from the purchase of Jaguar to its present state of somewhat faltering recovery. The reality is far more convoluted. Ford spent a fortune on new product at Jaguar, almost immediately after acquisition. They spent a fortune on Castle Bromwich (worthwhile) and Browns Lane assembly (not smart). They turned the 21 year old XJS into the still beautiful XK8, and turned the ungainly and ergonomically nightmarish XJ6 into the new XJ8. They gave Jaguar a new V8, new transmissions (replacing three-speed GM hydromatics). They replaced lousy electronics with quality units, and in short, spent a fortune bringing the XJs from 1978 to a beautiful if still somewhat archaic modernity. They planted Jaguar solidly on the ground with quality product, new powertrains, new bodies, new manufacturing facilities, and a road to profitability that would--in the near term--still require some Ford assistance on new product development, as the XK8 and XJ8 were still in need of totally new architectures. In short, things looked good for the cat, under a strategy that is not too distant from the strategy that Fields put in place before being recalled to Dearborn. Ford had, in the space of about 7-8 years, dramatically improved Jaguar and put it on the road to health and happiness. And then, for entirely unaccountable reasons, well sorry, out of shortsighted greed, Jaguar was steered off track and into the woods. Ford has a certain moral obligation to at least undo the damage that they did to Jaguar before they sell it off. And, frankly, once they've seen it through, they've no cause to sell it off Please don't get me wrong. I have strong doubts about selling off Land Rover and Jaguar especially since both might fetch very little right now and could become quite valuable soon in the future. And as you say, few would pay much for Jaguar but they very likely may succeed in a few more years time. I only meant to say that they should look at what Jaguar and other marks can do for the company in the future and not what they have put into it in the past. I guess I am far more attached, probably irrationally so, to Ford Lincoln and Mercury than I am to any of their acquired brands. I guess if they did it over again, I kind of wish that the money spent on the acquired brands would have instead been reinvested into the so many neglected FLM vehicles that have died or are currently dying a slow death. Out of all the acquired brands, I probably like Jaguar the most, but of course it has been the least successful of them all and perhaps demonstrates the lack of business acumen that I possess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted August 17, 2006 Share Posted August 17, 2006 Please don't get me wrong. I have strong doubts about selling off Land Rover and Jaguar especially since both might fetch very little right now and could become quite valuable soon in the future. And as you say, few would pay much for Jaguar but they very likely may succeed in a few more years time. I only meant to say that they should look at what Jaguar and other marks can do for the company in the future and not what they have put into it in the past. I guess I am far more attached, probably irrationally so, to Ford Lincoln and Mercury than I am to any of their acquired brands. I guess if they did it over again, I kind of wish that the money spent on the acquired brands would have instead been reinvested into the so many neglected FLM vehicles that have died or are currently dying a slow death. Out of all the acquired brands, I probably like Jaguar the most, but of course it has been the least successful of them all and perhaps demonstrates the lack of business acumen that I possess. When Ford had money to invest in Jag, LR, AM, Volvo, they also had money to invest in NA product. They chose not to. It is a mistake to accuse Ford of starving NA to feed Britain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCK Posted August 17, 2006 Share Posted August 17, 2006 When Ford had money to invest in Jag, LR, AM, Volvo, they also had money to invest in NA product. They chose not to. It is a mistake to accuse Ford of starving NA to feed Britain. That is even worst. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted August 17, 2006 Share Posted August 17, 2006 That is even worst. Thats because the management from the mid-1990's till Bill Ford took over was drinking the SUV/Truck coolaid. Think about it...since the Launch of the 2000 Focus, what was Ford working car wise? Um Nothing except the new Mustang! Not till 2001/2002 did Ford have a clue to what it was doing with its car line up untill it decided to go with the D3 from Volvo and the CD3 based on the Mazada 6 to meet its needs for new cars, since waiting for FoNA to develop something would have take too long. I'm not sure if you notice, but since the D3 launch in 2004, Ford has seriously fixed its launch problems and quailty problems it was having prior to that. The only car that was worth a damn and wasn't hobbled from the start that came from the late 90's-02 Development time Frame was the New Mustang. The D3 was an adtemp to get a new car out in the market, though half-cooked IMO, but then again Ford didn't have much else they could do. the CD3's where part of Ford's new thinking and the upcoming products coming out now till 2008 are very much improved from their pre-2004 launches. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IPITYDAFOOL VIRUSFREE Posted August 18, 2006 Share Posted August 18, 2006 Click here for the article http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/060817/skorea_hyun...aguar.html?.v=1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted August 18, 2006 Share Posted August 18, 2006 The proper way to interpret this: Ford said no. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.