Govt. Bailout, Norton Style

What is 1400 jobs safely lost against the prospect of 30 jobs perhaps? Says "the German friend". And yes, sold my Siemens shares about a year ago, invested the money in a certain company in Hungerford/UK instead.

A journalist friend rang UK govt press office. They say Santander loan is a done deal. A default would be picked up by govt (eg taxpayer). "They export loads of products," he was told. No idea what they call loads, but you can bet these loads are but a fraction of what Andover Norton exports. Then again, neither does Andover Norton get a loan under this scheme, nor does it want one.

TimG wrote:
Seriously though, I would love to see the Norton name back on the streets to stay

Hi Tim,

The Norton name on the tank of my combat is on the road...where's your's?

Joe,

Appreciate your attitude toward making the parts for us old Commando oweners that want to keep riding them.

Idea.....

Take Andover-Norton public, then with the new found capitol, purchase controlling ownership in the New Norton.

I'll take more than a couple of shares....


JD

ZFD said:

What is 1400 jobs safely lost against the prospect of 30 jobs perhaps? Says "the German friend". And yes, sold my Siemens shares about a year ago, invested the money in a certain company in Hungerford/UK instead.

A journalist friend rang UK govt press office. They say Santander loan is a done deal. A default would be picked up by govt (eg taxpayer). "They export loads of products," he was told. No idea what they call loads, but you can bet these loads are but a fraction of what Andover Norton exports. Then again, neither does Andover Norton get a loan under this scheme, nor does it want one.

Click to expand...

jeffdavison said:

Idea.....

Take Andover-Norton public, then with the new found capitol, purchase controlling ownership in the New Norton.

I'll take more than a couple of shares....


JD

Click to expand...

Going to take more than a couple shares. Best to wait for Norton to fold and then see how much the fire sale is.

There is a slight snag, though. I do not believe in the financial viability of the whole exercise unless properly funded and with a viable product range. I told Kenny Dreer when we first met in 2002- they call me the king of diplomacy- I saw no sense in his under-powered, air-cooled, pushrod-operated retro design, and I showed him some, I thought, viable alternatives. Remember this is now nearly a decade ago! I now know how he got there, and that my criticism was not really fair, because- contrary to what I believed at the time- he did not start with a white sheet of paper, but the project was a development of the original Commando gone haywire.

Plus, as I said before, my idea of funding is Bloor-dimensions, i.e. three figure millions. Andover Norton is a small, profitable company. It may have the capital it needs to aquire the shambles, but, more importantly, no way have I, or has Andover Norton, the funds to put it on its feet and make it run, let alone make it fly. And, quite frankly, had I access to that sort of money there are far more sensible industries to invest it in.

F.e. TPG, a daughter of Deutsche Bank, has once (in better days) aquired Ducati and has tried to sell it on for years. No takers- the profits are negligible, as in all other motorcycle manufacturers these days, so nobody wants it. Just to give you all an idea how financially exciting motorcycle manufacture is.

Selling shares and spreading risk, in fact risking other people's money, is not my world. Nor is taking deposits and not coming up with the goods within the promised period. I fear I am a bit too straight for the world of high-flying publicity and low-rate fulfillment.

Perhaps it could be mentioned here that Victory Motorcycles (Polaris) has just acquired the remnants of The New Indian Motorcycle Co - apparently at a firesale price.

Why is that of interest here ? Because the now former owners were English venture capitalists. And must have sunk a fair few shekels into the venture, what with a vast new building to house it, and setting up a whole new chain of "Dealers" (non-motorcycle people, car dealers mostly it seems). Who now have large stocks of unsold expensive luxury bikes - production was well funded it seems. Opposite problem to the new Norton Co...

Maybe they should have invested closer to home ?
Where the bikes were actually in demand.
Easy to be wise after the event, of course.

ZFD said:

Selling shares and spreading risk, in fact risking other people's money, is not my world. Nor is taking deposits and not coming up with the goods within the promised period. I fear I am a bit too straight for the world of high-flying publicity and low-rate fulfillment.

Click to expand...

My philosophy as well, Mr. ZFD... I remain vindicated. It is genuinely refreshing (especially these days) to see one in business with true integrity. Some people consider biz cats like us to be suckers, I like to think of myself as old-fashioned.

cheers

Don

ZFD said:

Selling shares and spreading risk, in fact risking other people's money, is not my world. Nor is taking deposits and not coming up with the goods within the promised period. I fear I am a bit too straight for the world of high-flying publicity and low-rate fulfillment.

Click to expand...

I don't think there's anything wrong with someone who risks other people's money. Capitalism is actually a pretty efficient system. It certainly is superior to the old patronage system that preceded it. it just looks like a cluster fest.

When this thread started I looked up John Bloor to see how it was that he succeeded where all the New Norton Companies tanked. The difference is that he invested a great deal of time and money before the first bike was built. I don't know how much of it was other people's money but I think Triumph is still part of his private holding company, and probably doing as good or better than the housing business at the moment. It wouldn't be completely absurd for him to buy up Norton. He could refine the 961 and, be still my heart, resurrect the F1. The Commando wouldn't compete with the Bonneville and they don't have anything like the F1.

1. Bloor invested only money he owned. Though he well understands capitalism.
2. He bought the trademark, developed a product range, built a factory, started production, and ONLY THEN told the world about it.
3. He did not show the world children's drawings of non-functional rotary engines, V4 race engines, or Terreblanche scetches, and told the world about plans he had no money for.
4. Racing did not play a rôle in his first years as he (rightly) saw it as a waste of money and time. Even now it is done only at the lowest level which costs relatively little.
5. His first product range, Kawasaki clones, excited nobody and only English patriots bought them. He then developed a new product range around his niche Tripple engine and a new aluminium frame that got him his niche in the motorcycle market.
6. Only after he had developed that range, was firmly established with importers and a functioning dealer network did he start his "retro" Bonneville range, cheaply produced in Thailand, at a competitive retail price.
7. He never took deposits for bikes not yet built to pay wages and rent.
8. Bloor is a successful businessman in other fields and could finance the motorcycle exercise from money he had and running income.

This is where the similarities between new Norton and new Triumph end.

rpatton said:

ZFD said:

Selling shares and spreading risk, in fact risking other people's money, is not my world. Nor is taking deposits and not coming up with the goods within the promised period. I fear I am a bit too straight for the world of high-flying publicity and low-rate fulfillment.

Click to expand...

I don't think there's anything wrong with someone who risks other people's money. Capitalism is actually a pretty efficient system. It certainly is superior to the old patronage system that preceded it. it just looks like a cluster fest.

When this thread started I looked up John Bloor to see how it was that he succeeded where all the New Norton Companies tanked. The difference is that he invested a great deal of time and money before the first bike was built. I don't know how much of it was other people's money but I think Triumph is still part of his private holding company, and probably doing as good or better than the housing business at the moment. It wouldn't be completely absurd for him to buy up Norton. He could refine the 961 and, be still my heart, resurrect the F1. The Commando wouldn't compete with the Bonneville and they don't have anything like the F1.

Click to expand...

The state of world economy at the moment doesnt seem to me to suggest capitalism works that well...............and perhaps most of the 23 million people in the US who are currently unemployed would possibly agree?

Capitalism (greed) is also the main reason for the failure of the once great British motorcycle industry, which in the years when it was highly profitable, invested little or nothing in developing new machines, and seemed to think customers would continue to buy bikes with 40 year old engine designs............a hope which quickly evaporated in the face of competition from the Japanese!

I get the feeling that most of the major component parts of all the modern Triumphs were and are produced in the Far East, and as well as high quality parts at very reasonable cost, this means the bikes are commercially viable, unlike the new Nortons where most parts are made in the UK at 3 or 4 times the cost of the Far Eastern parts used on the Triumphs.

You seem to assume the "new Commando" consists of parts the majority of which are made in England. I saw a report on a "factory visit" which says:
"Surprise number 2 was the main stores room where box after box was marked with 'Made in Taiwan' or elsewhere abroad.
How much of the bike is made here, on site, was the question? About 5% was the reply."
It is not just Harleys and Triumphs consisting of components made abroad these days. Difference in price can not be explained by the content of components made in England.

There was some fancy turbo twin cam four valve TWO cylinder Candian snowmobile or Jetski engine produced not so long ago , for people who insist on playing around with these things , was about 10 k though .

Now that'd get something up and moveing. Anyone recall the device .

ZFD said:

You seem to assume the "new Commando" consists of parts the majority of which are made in England. I saw a report on a "factory visit" which says:
"Surprise number 2 was the main stores room where box after box was marked with 'Made in Taiwan' or elsewhere abroad.
How much of the bike is made here, on site, was the question? About 5% was the reply."
It is not just Harleys and Triumphs consisting of components made abroad these days. Difference in price can not be explained by the content of components made in England.

Click to expand...

Cant see how a company which seems to have very little working capital would be able to afford to have major component parts made in the Far east? On the other hand though its pretty easy to get hold of any number of empty packing boxes, with whatever you want printed on them, that are very low cost, and are certainly going to impress visitors, or maybe possible investors?

I guess around 80% of all parts used on current Harleys and Triumphs is sourced from outside the US and UK, but not sure those behind the new Norton can be seriously compared to Harley or Triumph, as they seem to be relying in ridiculous claims about race bikes etc, and seem quite unable to supply customers with bikes for which they have already paid for.

Components can be purchased from the Far East which are not specific to the "new Commando", but which will fit it- the gearbox is a pirate copy of a Harley box (and these are available from the Far East), many other components (electrics, instruments, suspension, wheel components, brake components, fuel management components, handlebars and controls etcetc). These are readily available in any quantity from the various suppliers and do not have to be made specifically for this motorcycle.

Ok I guess any amount of generic parts one size fits all are available, but unless they are also getting major engine components made in the Far East as well, then not entirely sure the project is ever going to be commercially viable? If Triumph for instance was getting these parts made in UK, then production costs would increase pretty drastically, and would probably mean bikes would be a lot more costly.

The financial viability was what everybody in the motorcycle industry doubted from day 1.
Ollie, the money man behind Kenny Dreer, planned to develop the bike fully- something Kenny tells me they were about two years away from by the time Kenny finished- and to have the components made and probably even the bike assembled in China where Ollie had other business interests. But looking at it again closely Ollie pulled the plug as even the Chinese option made him doubt the financial viability.
Ollie is a banker with a university degree, so he can calculate.

ZFD said:

5. His first product range, Kawasaki clones, excited nobody and only English patriots bought them. He then developed a new product range around his niche Tripple engine and a new aluminium frame that got him his niche in the motorcycle market.
6. Only after he had developed that range, was firmly established with importers and a functioning dealer network did he start his "retro" Bonneville range, cheaply produced in Thailand, at a competitive retail price.

Click to expand...

5: I don't ever recall seeing ANYTHING in Kawasaki's lineup that even FAINTLY resembled an early model New Triumph; least of all a triple. Thier instant (relative) success ensured a viable U.S. market, to say the least.

6: I don't think New Bonnie production moved to Thailand 'till a couple of years after it's initial success... It's continued success is a tribute to proper thinking (basic modularity to extend a product line).

grandpaul said:

ZFD said:

5. His first product range, Kawasaki clones, excited nobody and only English patriots bought them. He then developed a new product range around his niche Tripple engine and a new aluminium frame that got him his niche in the motorcycle market.
6. Only after he had developed that range, was firmly established with importers and a functioning dealer network did he start his "retro" Bonneville range, cheaply produced in Thailand, at a competitive retail price.

Click to expand...

5: I don't ever recall seeing ANYTHING in Kawasaki's lineup that even FAINTLY resembled an early model New Triumph; least of all a triple. Thier instant (relative) success ensured a viable U.S. market, to say the least.

6: I don't think New Bonnie production moved to Thailand 'till a couple of years after it's initial success... It's continued success is a tribute to proper thinking (basic modularity to extend a product line).

Click to expand...

It was widely noted at the time that the Triumph engine had more than a passing similarity to a Kawasaki one.

And wisely Triumph, IIRC, did keep the manufacturing local with the retro bikes before moving stuff offshore. Not a bad plan as you can control the development better and then once the bike is throughly tested, manufacture it elsewhere.

swooshdave said:

It was widely noted at the time that the Triumph engine had more than a passing similarity to a Kawasaki one.

Click to expand...

"More than a passing similarity" would be much more accurate than "clone". Smart business unless you happen to be a mechanical design genius, or have an on-board crack mechanical design staff. Certainly the Kawasaki "W" was proper (albeit failed) retribution...