Page 3 of 3
Re: ARO 'counter factual' article on the Rover/Honda relationship
Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2025 3:42 pm
by CoupeFan
Zeuss101 wrote: ↑Fri Oct 10, 2025 1:38 pm
Ah, that's the level of upper management success in big British business we've come to know and love in the UK.
I wish could disagree with you, but so many well-known companies from the 1960s and 1970s are no more, or are shadows of their former selves, or are now subdidiaries of overseas companies. Not all will have gone due to poor or self-centred management, but it does make you wonder......
Re: ARO 'counter factual' article on the Rover/Honda relationship
Posted: Mon Nov 10, 2025 8:22 pm
by Evil C
Zeuss101 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 06, 2025 4:14 pm
I wonder then, whether the decision to go with the Domani was a direct result of Honda being annoyed that they'd lost the opportunity for their usual joint project.
I had always assumed it might have been rather more that without being able to split the development costs with Rover for a new car from the ground up, they may have been unable to afford such a development programme on their own and reworking the Domani was the affordable option - Honda were not exactly rolling in cash at the time themselves (which has been stated as one of the reasons they were unwilling to buy Rover from BAe when it was offered to them; they offered to substantially increase their shareholding in Rover, but that was as much as they were able/willing to afford to do).