Various people (mainly those in the Labour Party) have tried to argue the case that the DTI did not push MG Rover (and Powertrain) into administration.
The linked article that has just been pointed out to me includes the following dated 4th April 2005.
Five days to rescue Rover as Chinese blow cold on deal
By Michael Harrison Business Editor
Apr 4, 2005, 12:34
MG Rover, the only remaining British-owned volume car maker, will be forced to call in the receivers by the end of this week unless an emergency £100m loan is made available from the Government.
This was reported at midday on the Monday of that week.
Personally I feel this particular article substantiates the argument beyond reasonable doubt.
The result of articles such as this (for which the DTI have to accept responsibility for starting the Hares running) was that suppliers refused to provide supplies without cash up front. The company's cash, therefore, drained away in 2 days. See my earlier post for the rest of the matter.
The linked article that has just been pointed out to me includes the following dated 4th April 2005.
Five days to rescue Rover as Chinese blow cold on deal
By Michael Harrison Business Editor
Apr 4, 2005, 12:34
MG Rover, the only remaining British-owned volume car maker, will be forced to call in the receivers by the end of this week unless an emergency £100m loan is made available from the Government.
This was reported at midday on the Monday of that week.
Personally I feel this particular article substantiates the argument beyond reasonable doubt.
The result of articles such as this (for which the DTI have to accept responsibility for starting the Hares running) was that suppliers refused to provide supplies without cash up front. The company's cash, therefore, drained away in 2 days. See my earlier post for the rest of the matter.
Comments
So, Rover and SAIC say they are up the proverbial creek, while the DTI fly a team out to support Rover and promise a loan if the business case supports it. The line about calling in the receivers is not attributed, so could have come from any of the three. Given the tone of the other comments made, it seems marginally more likely to have come from Rover/SAIC than the DTI.
This article substantiates the problems with Rover, but certainly does not prove anything about the DTI. To say that it proves anything beyond reasonable doubt is, frankly, laughable.
Once SAIC pulled out, having stripped Rover of everything they wanted (the IPR for the cars and engines, mainly), the company was doomed and the DTI was irrelevant.
You are the only one advancing this case and nobody believes it, no matter how loudly or often you repeat your theories.
Rover was milked and abandoned by the management team and the investigation report will make very interesting reading.