Michael Cook wrote:
>To All Those Who Actually Remember the Name "Triumph"
>It will be very interesting to see what happens with the relationship between
>Gaydon and
the
>new owners of Rover.
Michael, I can assure you this is of more than passing interest to those of us
who work at
Gaydon.
>There is another aspect of the situation which concerns us.>
>The New York Times today has remarkably complete coverage of BMW's sale of The
>Rover
Group
>cars operation to The Alchemy Group of investors and the planned sale of
>Land-Rover to
Ford.
>The articles go into detail about how Alchemy plans to re-introduce Rover
>products as MG
cars
>and how they have also acquired many other famous car names in the purchase.
>The list
includes
>long-gone and little-recognized names like Riley and Wolseley but nowhere in
>either
article
>does the name Triumph appear!
I suspect the New York Times may have pre-judged the ownership status. More
likely, it has
pre-assumed that as those old names were part of British Motor Heritage AKA
Rover, it is
logical they should automatically revert to Rover. This is currently not at all
clear and
not an assumption it would be wise for anyone, including the NYT, to make.
>
> Having worked for both Triumph and British Leyland, I am especially
>sensitive to the
media
>and public recognition of MG and Jaguar but not Triumph, a marque which
>virtualy equalled
MG
>in sales in this country and far outsold Jaguar.
> Now maybe it isn't all that important if those of us who love Triumph know
>about it
and
>can exchange communications about TRs with our friends. And, I would agree
>that if they
want
>to return to the North American market they should begin with MG - that's
>simply being
>practical.
> But, I sure would like to see some TR badges back on the road on new
>millennium cars.
What
>do you think?
On the shorter term, say the next two years, I would think it is highly
improbable - but
stranger things have happened at sea.
Jonmac
|