Barclay McInnes wrote:
Well, the story I have heard from various sources, one of them the
mouth
of
> an MG owner in Vancouver here was that a percentage of the hardcore
MG
folk
> blame British Leyland for killing off the MGs, and further they
blame the
> TR7/8s for killing BL, ending any hope that BL would have brought
out new
> MGs... I must say I have run into my share of this as well. I used
to
find
> it quite puzzling.
May I attempt to clarify from my own knowledge, having been in the
middle of it, albeit in a junior capacity? At formation in 1968, BL's
car division (as distinct from trucks, buses and earth-moving) was
split into two:
Volume Car Division: Austin, Morris, MG, Riley and Wolseley and
subsidiaries
Specialist Car Division: Jaguar, Rover/Land Rover, Triumph and
subsidiaries
Worth noting that Jaguar had come into the set up via Austin Morris as
the company had been bought by BMC in 1966 (?) and the whole combine
for two or three years was known as BMH (British Motor Holdings) From
the outset, the volume car division was making a major loss and it was
for this prime reason that BL was brought about by British government
intervention. For this not to have happened would have meant major job
losses and a massive loss of votes for the then party in government.
Prior to the merger, the Leyland Motor Corporation which carwise was
only Rover/Land Rover and Triumph was profitable though the Rover P6
and Triumph Barb (2000 saloon did compete in certain specs). In all
other respects and in the early pre BL days, Rover / Triumph
complemented one another with a diverse range of saloons and sports
cars. There is ample evidence that a merger was considered in detail
prior to 1968 but Harriman (BMH) wanted to run the larger organisation
and Stokes (Leyland) argued that as Leyland was profitable (and BMH
wasn't) he should hold the reins of power.
Eventually, Stokes won the battle a year or so later when BMH was
about to crash into bankruptcy and BL came into being.
The resulting leviathan of companies making what were to all intents
and purposes competing cars, meant that rationalisation of the product
range was inevitable and essential. The losses incurred by the Volume
division continued to outstrip the profits of the Specialist division
and there was a climate of opinion that all the sports cars (notably
MGB, Midget and Sprite were unprofitable) This is a debatable point
and it has to be acknowledged the Abingdon plant where they were made
was tiny and probably incapable of producing more than it did.
Equally, because the UK government was reluctant to inject cash into
the new organisation - even without nationalising it - the factories
were too small and too diverse in location to make much difference.
This was particularly relevant to Austin Morris whose plants were way
out of date, needed a massive re-investment in tooling and processes -
and the thinking at the time was they also needed a new volume car -
later to become the Marina. There just wasn't enough money to go
round.
Add to this, a confrontational attitude on the part of the trade
unions (apart from Abingdon which was a model of good IR)
together with no small issue of ineffective management allied to
output at all costs - and its hardly surprisinng the whole thing
failed.
On the issue of whether Triumph engineers killed MG (or whatever), the
issue is more fundamental and really has nothing to do with sports
cars of either make. It's my perception that many US listers and
enthusiasts I have met feel that sports cars were the
be all and end of all of BL, possibly because sports cars were mostly
the only products from the corporation that were sold in North
America.
This was definitely not the case and in the hard economics of mass
production, what is the point of continuing production of Midget,
Spitfire, MGB and TR - when they're competitive within their
respective groups and made by the same company.
Certainly one or the other, but not both - and if one is to die in the
rationalisation, which one?
On the premise (rightly or wrongly) that sports cars of all types were
*never profitable* (Stoke's words, not mine) there was absolutely no
money to develop a new one or a new range.
But the demise of the MGB and the TR had nothing to do with the fact
they were sports cars or that the US market was so substantial. Is any
market worth pursuing, if it doesn't bring in a profit and none of the
sports car markets were sufficiently profitable to justify continuing
making them - regardless of the make.
BL was making money (but not enough) with its saloon range from Jaguar
Rover Triumph. But the demise of Triumph
as a whole was that the non-sports car range, whose output was far
more substantial and profitable than many appreciate, did not fit in a
volume car division (Austin and Morris) and it was usurping both Rover
and Jaguar in terms of specification, sales and profits. This was
adversely affecting the jewels in Leyland's crown (Jaguar and Rover)
and both Rover P6 and Triumph Innsbruck saloons were competing in much
the same marketplace. Management at the time felt Jaguar and
Rover/Land Rover names and products had to be preserved at all costs
and there was a market for two prestige cars (Jaguar and Rover
SD1/Land Rover / Range Rover) but not the offerings from Triumph that
were becoming fairly long in the tooth. So, shut it down and use the
facility for parts storage and company headquarters. That didn't work
in the longer term either, so pull it down and sell off the real
estate. That DID make economic sense.
This general situation came back last year when BMW ditched Rover.
IMHO, the Longbridge plant has never been particularly impressive from
a build quality or profit record (until very recently and its still
losing money) and if we go back to 1968 with the benefit of hindsight,
it might have been far more sensible to have kept the companies that
WERE making money (or could be turned around fairly easily over a few
years) - viz Jaguar, MG (possibly), Rover/Land Rover and Triumph. This
would have saved only part of the then substantial workforce but
cherry-picking in that way might well have saved the business in a
smaller and arguably more profitable form. Again, the price in terms
of loss of votes and major unemployment within Austin Morris and the
many component suppliers (at least seven component supplier employees
for every Austin Morris employee) was too much of a political hot
potato and history has recorded the rest.
There was also the moot issue of terminating a large chunk of the
global dealer network and national sales companies whose severance and
closure costs would have been astronomic and far more than Leyland had
the money to pay off.
The demise of the sports cars was probably inevitable given the lack
of finance. They probably were unprofitable (depending on model) and
contrary to popular belief, did not account for the bulk of the output
Moreover, the survival of MG over Triumph in recent years is
reasonably predictable for one simple reason that Triumph purists will
entirely reject. Unhappy as I am (as an avowed enthusiast and former
employee) to put this in writing, it has to be acknowledged that among
the less informed members of the global general public, MG had and
still has more street cred for sports cars and sports saloons than
Triumph ever did - and it had a less turbulent history. Many will
probably disagree with this as it relates to Triumph (post war) but
you have to look at the WHOLE Triumph range rather than the sports
cars in isolation which were only a part of the output. Towards the
end (say 1970 onwards) Triumph sports cars didn't make meaningful
money in any of the markets in which they were sold, Triumph saloons
did - but they competed too much to the disadvantage of Jaguar (less
so) and Rover (more so).
During the periods of what seemed to be continuing rationalisation,
too many marques were abandoned to meet the lowest common denominator
and all that's left is MG Rover under Phoenix with Aston Martin,
Jaguar and Land Rover under Ford. Perhaps containment on a smaller
scale offering high spec cars is how it should have been from the very
outset in 1968 and maybe there's just a chance both will survive in
the forms in which they now appear?
Jonmac
/// triumphs@autox.team.net mailing list
/// To unsubscribe send a plain text message to majordomo@autox.team.net
/// with nothing in it but
///
/// unsubscribe triumphs
///
|