TVS News-2023 Annual Report. Does no news equal good news, or does hiding the news mean something?

Mate, are you fixating on the seat cowl just a little. Is it ‘fairly priced’ as you indicate or inflated as a ‘rarely sell or be needed’ or ‘increased for a Donington bike‘ part, etc’? Are you saying it’s fairly priced or inflated. If you don’t know why it’s inflated, how do you know it is fairly priced. Please don’t answer those, they’re not questions.

Again, it’s a matter of choice. I would pay £850 for the Thruxton Cafe Racer fairing with its 80+ parts, including its four fairing panels, a very natty mounting frame, screen and clip on handlebars.

IMG_7852.jpeg

I would not pay £1000 for a very small seat cowl made up of 6 components, the main one of which is at a cost to Norton of about £30 according to Stu. Especially as I could get one made at a fraction of the cost. As I say - personal choice mate.

If getting an entire single seat unit made out of carbon for less than the price of the cowl is being cheap, then I’m definitely cheap🤣!

If you don’t believe they have re-engineered the 961 because they won’t provide every technical detail, then nobody here can persuade you.

Maybe we can stop flogging this dead horse.

Steve
 
Last edited:
Stephen_Spencer said:
Mate, are you fixating on the seat cowl just a little. Is it ‘fairly priced’ as you indicate or inflated as a ‘rarely sell or be needed’ or ‘increased for a Donington bike‘ part, etc’? Are you saying it’s fairly priced or inflated. If you don’t know why it’s inflated, how do you know it is fairly priced. Please don’t answer those, they’re not questions.

Again, it’s a matter of choice. I would pay £850 for the Thruxton Cafe Racer fairing with its 80+ parts, including its four fairing panels, a very natty mounting frame, screen and clip on handlebars.

View attachment 107989

I would not pay £1000 for a very small seat cowl made up of 6 components, the main one of which is at a cost to Norton of about £30 according to Stu. Especially as I could get one made at a fraction of the cost. As I say - personal choice mate.

If getting an entire single seat unit made out of carbon for less than the price of the cowl is being cheap, then I’m definitely cheap🤣!

If you don’t believe they have re-engineered the 961 because they won’t provide every technical detail, then nobody here can persuade you.

Maybe we can stop flogging this dead horse.

Steve
Click to expand...
But, I cant vouch for the accuracy as it was old Norton and they weren't exactly very organised in stores or purchasing.
 

Attachments

  • TVS News-2023 Annual Report. Does no news equal good news, or does hiding the news mean something?
    Screenshot_20230704_081802_Microsoft 365 (Office).jpg
    179.3 KB · Views: 83
Stu Bodycote said:
But, I cant vouch for the accuracy as it was old Norton and they weren't exactly very organised in stores or purchasing.
Click to expand...
Thanks Stu - guess there must be a reason for such a significant increase, or they’ve made a mistake in the quote. No matter, I was only looking at replacing it as an option - I’ve decided on another route.

Similar to Sdonders one shown, but in the original single seat unit configuration.

TVS News-2023 Annual Report. Does no news equal good news, or does hiding the news mean something?
 
Last edited:
Stephen_Spencer said:
A little balance maybe. The only way for Norton Birmingham to make money is to sell motorcycles (spares, accessories/merchandise) - they have been doing so for just a few months, whilst developing a model lineup.

View attachment 107980

They have been in the ‘start-up‘ phase since purchasing the marque over 3 years ago. Every single logistical, structural, equipment, HR, brand building, design & developmental dollar since (possibly including business purchase price?) will show as a loss? Time and activity costs coin - the very reason the original investment dollars were provided. What do we expect the balance sheet for the last few years, this and (almost certainly) the next few to look like?

How many tens of million of (80’s) pounds did Bloor invest at Triumph, setting up over 10 or so years, before re-launching Triumph and starting to make a profit?

We all realise that Norton Birmingham has the advantage of a successful multinational motor company as owners however, my guess is that TVS has planned for the balance sheet to show significant losses over a business establishment period - and that shareholders are savvy enough to realise why this is required. They’re playing the long game right?

Who here is qualified to say that the current trajectory in either funding or time is wrong, inappropriate or terminal (from a business perspective)? Before they’ve even announced their (none-legacy) bike line-up or put in place any planned export links.

Has Norton/TVS made mistakes, almost certainly - will they make more, almost certainly. Show me a business that hasn’t. Will they ultimately succeed? We hope so, but who knows - it’s a massively competitive environment.

Not concerned if anybody thinks this is over-optimistic fan-boy content. In my opinion, and we’re all entitled to one, this is balanced middle ground commentary given that we don’t have a seat in Norton’s boardroom. Nor experience in running a multinational motorcycle company with revenue measured in the billions.

My opinion only.
Click to expand...
Yet more tosh media reporting. The £100m reported above is incorrect and was actually £60m and that includes loans and the payment for the company from BDO, this is clearly stated in the previous years TVS Group report.

They have been at the helm now for 3.5 years, produced very little, have plans for very little and despite their size as a company will need to play catch up in the electric bike sector. A company of this size should be leading that sector, not in 2030, but now.

Make no mistake, TVS will sell Nortons into the Indian market just like Triumph will do with the 400, those bikes will have to be made in India due to import costs prohibiting them being made elsewhere. Yet again another sign they have taking their eye off the ball.
 
Madnorton said:
Yet more tosh media reporting. The £100m reported above is incorrect and was actually £60m and that includes loans and the payment for the company from BDO, this is clearly stated in the previous years TVS Group report.

They have been at the helm now for 3.5 years, produced very little, have plans for very little and despite their size as a company will need to play catch up in the electric bike sector. A company of this size should be leading that sector, not in 2030, but now.

Make no mistake, TVS will sell Nortons into the Indian market just like Triumph will do with the 400, those bikes will have to be made in India due to import costs prohibiting them being made elsewhere. Yet again another sign they have taking their eye off the ball.
Click to expand...

Interesting take mate, you talk with considerable authority.

’……..have plans for very little’? What are their plans?

nortonmotorcycles.com

TVS Invests £100 Million | Norton Motorcycles

TVS Motor Company, today announced an investment of £100 million in Norton Motorcycles
nortonmotorcycles.com nortonmotorcycles.com
 
Last edited:
Stephen_Spencer said:
A little balance maybe. The only way for Norton Birmingham to make money is to sell motorcycles (spares, accessories/merchandise) - they have been doing so for just a few months, whilst developing a model lineup.

View attachment 107980

They have been in the ‘start-up‘ phase since purchasing the marque over 3 years ago. Every single logistical, structural, equipment, HR, brand building, design & developmental dollar since (possibly including business purchase price?) will show as a loss? Time and activity costs coin - the very reason the original investment dollars were provided. What do we expect the balance sheet for the last few years, this and (almost certainly) the next few to look like?

How many tens of million of (80’s) pounds did Bloor invest at Triumph, setting up over 10 or so years, before re-launching Triumph and starting to make a profit?

We all realise that Norton Birmingham has the advantage of a successful multinational motor company as owners however, my guess is that TVS has planned for the balance sheet to show significant losses over a business establishment period - and that shareholders are savvy enough to realise why this is required. They’re playing the long game right?

Who here is qualified to say that the current trajectory in either funding or time is wrong, inappropriate or terminal (from a business perspective)? Before they’ve even announced their (none-legacy) bike line-up or put in place any planned export links.

Has Norton/TVS made mistakes, almost certainly - will they make more, almost certainly. Show me a business that hasn’t. Will they ultimately succeed? We hope so, but who knows - it’s a massively competitive environment.

Not concerned if anybody thinks this is over-optimistic fan-boy content. In my opinion, and we’re all entitled to one, this is balanced middle ground commentary given that we don’t have a seat in Norton’s boardroom. Nor experience in running a multinational motorcycle company with revenue measured in the billions.

My opinion only.
Click to expand...
It all depends on how they do their accounting. But I do not believe the £100m investment in infrastructure is a part of the loss figure. If it was, the loss figure would be a LOT more than the figure posted.

I believe the losses quoted are ‘operating losses’ and as such, do not included capex (capital investment).
 
Fast Eddie said:
It all depends on how they do their accounting. But I do not believe the £100m investment in infrastructure is a part of the loss figure. If it was, the loss figure would be a LOT more than the figure posted.

I believe the losses quoted are ‘operating losses’ and as such, do not included capex (capital investment).
Click to expand...
I don’t have the expertise to interpret the financials FE - the document is pretty complex. Would the £100m not have been allocated towards more than just infrastructure (buildings)? Including initial purchase of the marque and all other start-up costs?
 
Last edited:
Stephen_Spencer said:
I don’t have the expertise to interpret the financials FE - the document is pretty complex. Would the £100m not have been allocated for more than just infrastructure (buildings)?
Click to expand...

No idea what it was spent on. But my point is that it was an ‘investment’. Usually referred to as CAPEX (capital expenditure) which is often separated from ‘operating costs’.

Think about buying a house. Your monthly repayments are part of your household operating costs NOT the cash outlay of the house. You don’t declare bankruptcy because you paid £500,000 for a house and only earn £30,000 per year.

When they say they had a loss, I believe they mean an ‘operating loss’.

This would mean that their operating costs ie for heat, energy, wages, materials, etc that were incurred in a given financial year, exceeded their revenue in that same year.

Which, as already mention by another poster, is hardly surprising given they’ve only sold very low numbers.

As to whether it’s actually a problem or not, we can’t tell. Madnorton explains why he thinks it is. But Dr Bob claims the shareholders bought into the 10 year plans and timeframe for new models and consequently have accepted a period of financial loss.

As to who’s right, I’ve no idea.
 
Fast Eddie said:
No idea what it was spent on. But my point is that it was an ‘investment’. Usually referred to as CAPEX (capital expenditure) which is often separated from ‘operating costs’.

Think about buying a house. Your monthly repayments are part of your household operating costs NOT the cash outlay of the house. You don’t declare bankruptcy because you paid £500,000 for a house and only earn £30,000 per year.

When they say they had a loss, I believe they mean an ‘operating loss’.

This would mean that their operating costs ie for heat, energy, wages, materials, etc that were incurred in a given financial year, exceeded their revenue in that same year.

Which, as already mention by another poster, is hardly surprising given they’ve only sold very low numbers.

As to whether it’s actually a problem or not, we can’t tell. Madnorton explains why he thinks it is. But Dr Bob claims the shareholders bought into the 10 year plans and timeframe for new models and consequently have accepted a period of financial loss.

As to who’s right, I’ve no idea.
Click to expand...
Gotcha, complex stuff - way out of my comfort zone. It makes sense of course that they would require a significant period to reach a juncture at which profit was made. Let’s just hope they get there. A notoriously competitive environment to say the least.

The first (none legacy) models will be vital IMO. There’s a little contradiction here, in talk of continued premium bike production whilst also indicated in conversation on Social Media that there will be ‘something for everyone’ (read more affordable).

I suppose only time will tell, but I doubt the EV’s will be particularly affordable.
 
Madnorton said:
Yet more tosh media reporting. The £100m reported above is incorrect and was actually £60m and that includes loans and the payment for the company from BDO, this is clearly stated in the previous years TVS Group report.

They have been at the helm now for 3.5 years, produced very little, have plans for very little and despite their size as a company will need to play catch up in the electric bike sector. A company of this size should be leading that sector, not in 2030, but now.

Make no mistake, TVS will sell Nortons into the Indian market just like Triumph will do with the 400, those bikes will have to be made in India due to import costs prohibiting them being made elsewhere. Yet again another sign they have taking their eye off the ball.
Click to expand...
And how long will those "sales partners" wait around for the product to sell, especially if they had to make a financial investment in order to obtain said partnership
 
Stephen_Spencer said:
A little balance maybe. The only way for Norton Birmingham to make money is to sell motorcycles (spares, accessories/merchandise) - they have been doing so for just a few months, whilst developing a model lineup.
Click to expand...
Actually, they have to profit from what they sell. And that means from what "everyone" has seen, they are selling a marginal motorcycle at a premium price and then trying to upsell the "premium platinum package" to make a profit.

I'll take a small bite to explain the financial picture. It would be the same thing anyone who is looking at a potential investment would do. No different from Tesla or other corporations that take investment money

TVS spent in round numbers 80 million USD plus had 6.5 million dollar fund for working capital

They also had about 4 million in deposits left over from original customer orders.

They spent about 20 million just running the operation with no revenue offset-meaning nothing to sell

You also recall they received government grants

Regardless of CapEx(capital expenditure), they have OpEx(operating expense). So they have long-term liabilities(CapEx) and current (OpEx). Long-term is not a concern as that's the risk TVS was willing to take, and its money they knew they might lose. However, they need to make more money than they are spending to cover OpEx and then they need money at some point to cover the note or whatever loan for the CapEx/initial funding of Norton. CapEx money from TVS to Norton while its all TVS the money won't be free to Norton and TVS expects a return on investment. They need to be profitable even while operating at a loss. If they can't cover basic expenses then they need more loans

So it doesn't take a financial wizard to see you need to sell a whole lot of something to cover just expenses.

Employee costs alone are in the millions.

Say they have 50 people making an average of $50.00 USD per hour @40 hrs and 52 weeks

50 x $50 x 40 x 52 = 5, 200,000 USD

I don't know what taxes etc, are like in the UK but here, with employee costs, its about 33% of wages, so add another $1,716,000, and it might be more depending on benefits, uniforms, and other costs

So now we are at $6,916,000 so lets call it an even 7 million.

Say the profit on each motorcycle sale is some absurd number like $5000 you still need to sell 1400 motorcycles just to cover the employee expenses alone.


If you are so invested in what Norton is doing, and I have to agree with Scott, if you aren't willing to pay the "premier" price, then you just become the kid who needs to have the last word on every conversation.

Our motorcycle business is one of many businesses we own, and I am heavily invested in Norton as I have bought out numerous dealers' stock parts, so I would like to see it succeed. I would recommend you read last year's full report and compare it to the company of choice and then opine from a more informed position.
 
After finishing my last post, I went back to see if I could find wage costs for last year. This is on pounds.

2022 2021 £ £
Wages and salaries 4,736,453 3,269,220
Social security costs 487,781 330,090
Pension costs 330,711 1 87,442
5,554,945 3,786,752


So Im not that far off. $6, 992,118.00 USD, just employee costs alone. I would assume those costs have gone up this year as well
 
City Garage said:
Actually, they have to profit from what they sell. And that means from what "everyone" has seen, they are selling a marginal motorcycle at a premium price and then trying to upsell the "premium platinum package" to make a profit.

I'll take a small bite to explain the financial picture. It would be the same thing anyone who is looking at a potential investment would do. No different from Tesla or other corporations that take investment money

TVS spent in round numbers 80 million USD plus had 6.5 million dollar fund for working capital

They also had about 4 million in deposits left over from original customer orders.

They spent about 20 million just running the operation with no revenue offset-meaning nothing to sell

You also recall they received government grants

Regardless of CapEx(capital expenditure), they have OpEx(operating expense). So they have long-term liabilities(CapEx) and current (OpEx). Long-term is not a concern as that's the risk TVS was willing to take, and its money they knew they might lose. However, they need to make more money than they are spending to cover OpEx and then they need money at some point to cover the note or whatever loan for the CapEx/initial funding of Norton. CapEx money from TVS to Norton while its all TVS the money won't be free to Norton and TVS expects a return on investment. They need to be profitable even while operating at a loss. If they can't cover basic expenses then they need more loans

So it doesn't take a financial wizard to see you need to sell a whole lot of something to cover just expenses.

Employee costs alone are in the millions.

Say they have 50 people making an average of $50.00 USD per hour @40 hrs and 52 weeks

50 x $50 x 40 x 52 = 5, 200,000 USD

I don't know what taxes etc, are like in the UK but here, with employee costs, its about 33% of wages, so add another $1,716,000, and it might be more depending on benefits, uniforms, and other costs

So now we are at $6,916,000 so lets call it an even 7 million.

Say the profit on each motorcycle sale is some absurd number like $5000 you still need to sell 1400 motorcycles just to cover the employee expenses alone.


If you are so invested in what Norton is doing, and I have to agree with Scott, if you aren't willing to pay the "premier" price, then you just become the kid who needs to have the last word on every conversation.

Our motorcycle business is one of many businesses we own, and I am heavily invested in Norton as I have bought out numerous dealers' stock parts, so I would like to see it succeed. I would recommend you read last year's full report and compare it to the company of choice and then opine from a more informed position.
Click to expand...
You’ve certainly spent a lot of time making sure that yours is the last word CG. With respect, just how much more effective would your post have been at putting me in my place (which is what you are clearly trying to do) without the barbs at the end?

Last word? This is an enthusiasts discussion forum. That‘s what we are doing here - discussing a topic that you opened. Reading between the lines a little, you appear to infer overall, that I should not comment unless I posses a knowledge of the industry comparable to your own. How short forum conversations would be if we stuck to subjects of our specific expertise.

Read my language @ #17 (…balance ‘maybe’ ‘I guess’ etc); see where I put the question marks in the 2nd para+. I’m contributing to the conversation. I’m saying ‘this is my opinion - my discussion point - is it right? - do you agree? You might notice I finish off with ‘My opinion only’. You know, like in a discussion.

I certainly bow to your knowledge of the industry and hope Norton are not heading towards the gravel trap before they even get off the start line. I guess we better hope that Norton and TVS have financial/structural agreements in place that you are not privvy to.

That said, and not wishing to sound like a ‘kid’, I’ll continue to comment when I like, about whatever I like - as you are free to buy as many USD1200 plastic cowls as you like. I think I probably have the right to contribute, whether I buy one or not.

Not the last word - part of the discussion.

My opinion only.
 
Man, with those financials, I'd bail!!!
Why is Dr. Bob still there, with his experience, he could get a better position in an actual going concern?
Maybe he knows Rome wasn't built in a day.
I'm sure, there'll be a lot more red ink before Norton is ever back in the black.
The greater the risk, the greater the reward!
 
Stephen_Spencer said:
You’ve certainly spent a lot of time making sure that yours is the last word CG. With respect, just how much more effective would your post have been at putting me in my place (which is what you are clearly trying to do) without the barbs at the end?

Last word? This is an enthusiasts discussion forum. That‘s what we are doing here - discussing a topic that you opened. Reading between the lines a little, you appear to infer overall, that I should not comment unless I posses a knowledge of the industry comparable to your own. How short forum conversations would be if we stuck to subjects of our specific expertise.

Read my language @ #17 (…balance ‘maybe’ ‘I guess’ etc); see where I put the question marks in the 2nd para+. I’m contributing to the conversation. I’m saying ‘this is my opinion - my discussion point - is it right? - do you agree? You might notice I finish off with ‘My opinion only’. You know, like in a discussion.

I certainly bow to your knowledge of the industry and hope Norton are not heading towards the gravel trap before they even get off the start line. I guess we better hope that Norton and TVS have financial/structural agreements in place that you are not privvy to.

That said, and not wishing to sound like a ‘kid’, I’ll continue to comment when I like, about whatever I like - as you are free to buy as many USD1200 plastic cowls as you like. I think I probably have the right to contribute, whether I buy one or not.

Not the last word - part of the discussion.

My opinion only.
Click to expand...
Thank you for proving my point. There were no barbs, just discussion, so I took the time to show the numbers, which had nothing to do with you, only the topic of discussion.

You claim a balanced middle ground, yet you don't look at the actual facts presented. Yes, actual facts from a public company that has disclosed the numbers and outlooks. A company that is burning through cash up until a few months ago did little if any advertising and is selling a handful of motorcycles, trying to create a social media brand frenzy with no success and I would suggest they are probably paying for some of the reviews(not with cash in hand but with other enticements) and with little enthusiasm for the brand from its fan base, which eventually has you as it's down under president

You get so offended each time being called out for not buying something you need, then pray on the Norton altar. You bought a product with hard-to-source parts and services. Not only that, you bought a version that's even harder to source parts for, yet you complained on a public forum about it, and you found no sympathy so you just keep beating that horse.

Then you take a dig @Madnorton "Interesting take mate, you talk with considerable authority. ’……..have plans for very little’? What are their plans?" Condescending much? At least he took the time to read and give some facts.

Closing your replies with "my opinion" reeks of hiding behind a boulder while throwing little stones. Just say what you want and let it stand on its own. Everything we all write is "our opinion" unless it's taken directly from a source like the numbers and it's shown as a fact.

Half the crap you have written I don't agree with yet that doesn't stop me from liking your posts as I have done many times or laughing at it, but again, it's nothing personal, just "my opinion."

If you want to keep the discussion going then talk about the topic, not about how you are butt hurt because you don't like what is written
 
City Garage said:
Thank you for proving my point. There were no barbs, just discussion, so I took the time to show the numbers, which had nothing to do with you, only the topic of discussion.

You claim a balanced middle ground, yet you don't look at the actual facts presented. Yes, actual facts from a public company that has disclosed the numbers and outlooks. A company that is burning through cash up until a few months ago did little if any advertising and is selling a handful of motorcycles, trying to create a social media brand frenzy with no success and I would suggest they are probably paying for some of the reviews(not with cash in hand but with other enticements) and with little enthusiasm for the brand from its fan base, which eventually has you as it's down under president

You get so offended each time being called out for not buying something you need, then pray on the Norton altar. You bought a product with hard-to-source parts and services. Not only that, you bought a version that's even harder to source parts for, yet you complained on a public forum about it, and you found no sympathy so you just keep beating that horse.

Then you take a dig @Madnorton "Interesting take mate, you talk with considerable authority. ’……..have plans for very little’? What are their plans?" Condescending much? At least he took the time to read and give some facts.

Closing your replies with "my opinion" reeks of hiding behind a boulder while throwing little stones. Just say what you want and let it stand on its own. Everything we all write is "our opinion" unless it's taken directly from a source like the numbers and it's shown as a fact.

Half the crap you have written I don't agree with yet that doesn't stop me from liking your posts as I have done many times or laughing at it, but again, it's nothing personal, just "my opinion."

If you want to keep the discussion going then talk about the topic, not about how you are butt hurt because you don't like what is written
Click to expand...

Wow - you’ve been thinking about that for a while CG. No barbs? I’m a ‘kid that just wants to have the last word’! Not a barb? Was that necessary by the way, as it was likely to illicit the response that you got - and the reason we sit here now. I’d just leave it, but for your lengthy mischaracterisation above. Proving ‘your’ point?

‘Balanced’ because, although I might not run a business, I am savvy (and open minded) enough to know that we do not have ALL of the ‘actual facts’ as you call them. ‘Balanced‘ because you (and some others) routinely look for/seek out - appear to relish/create a negative narrative wherever possible. Yes Norton are secretive - choosing to fill the void in information with speculative negativity, in the absence of the full picture, is a choice. ‘Balance’, in this case, was mainly in response to #12 (the end is nigh - it’s all f#@^ed!!) which you affirm with the very next post. Mine was simply my thoughts on the subject - no barbs.

The balance sheet may look dire, or is it where Norton/TVS expected it to be at this juncture, all things considered? They’ve only been open for business for a few months. You yourself mention further loans for example - how do we know that they are not already allocated/scheduled? We have no idea what financial and contractual arrangements are in place. Why would we assume (or infer) that Norton is heading for failure only 3 years into their own stated 10 year plan. As Tony says ‘there’ll be a lot of red ink before Norton is ever back in the black’.

You are clutching at straws (and for ammunition) with your benal comments about the cowl. It was a secondary option. I went for my first option that happens to be less expensive. But you know that.

Did Madnorton give ‘facts’ as you state at #24 or a forthright set of opinions? I used a bit of sarcasm because again (IMO), we are setting a negative narrative in absence of information (at least in part) - Norton “…have plans for very little”. Really? Madnorton is entitled to his opinions of course, but if they include such statements expect to be challenged by someone - this is a discussion forum after all! If you want the definition of ‘condescending’, read your last sentence #31, with the tenor of the message in mind.

You are way more valuable to this forum than I am CG. You have technical knowledge and help out forum members - including myself from memory. But maybe it could be noted that this an enthusiasts forum as much as a technical one. It often doesn’t feel so and I wonder what prospective buyers take away. I sometimes look at my own 961 and it feels reduced/lesser by some of the stuff I read here - until I ride it next of course. You see a sub-standard bike being sold as a premium one and comment accordingly. I see the best bike I’ve ever owned - the most enjoyable riding and ownership experience that I’ve ever had. The only bike I’ve owned in 45 years that is a keeper. I suspect it is’nt sub-standard to too many on this forum - noting Nortons fixes.

Agreed - let’s get back to the subject and away from personal politics (and slurs). Nobody wants to read it.

Or is it part of the discussion?
 
Last edited:
Stephen_Spencer said:
Wow - you’ve been thinking about that for a while CG. No barbs? I’m a ‘kid that just wants to have the last word’! Not a barb? Was that necessary by the way, as it was likely to illicit the response that you got - and the reason we sit here now. I’d just leave it, but for your lengthy mischaracterisation above. Proving ‘your’ point?

‘Balanced’ because, although I might not run a business, I am savvy (and open minded) enough to know that we do not have ALL of the ‘actual facts’ as you call them. ‘Balanced‘ because you (and some others) routinely look for/seek out - appear to relish/create a negative narrative wherever possible. Yes Norton are secretive - choosing to fill the void in information with speculative negativity, in the absence of the full picture, is a choice. ‘Balance’, in this case, was mainly in response to #12 (the end is nigh - it’s all f#@^ed!!) which you affirm with the very next post. Mine was simply my thoughts on the subject - no barbs.

The balance sheet may look dire, or is it where Norton/TVS expected it to be at this juncture, all things considered? They’ve only been open for business for a few months. You yourself mention further loans for example - how do we know that they are not already allocated/scheduled? We have no idea what financial and contractual arrangements are in place. Why would we assume (or infer) that Norton is heading for failure only 3 years into their own stated 10 year plan. As Tony says ‘there’ll be a lot of red ink before Norton is ever back in the black’.

You are clutching at straws (and for ammunition) with your benal comments about the cowl. It was a secondary option. I went for my first option that happens to be less expensive. But you know that.

Did Madnorton give ‘facts’ as you state at #24 or a forthright set of opinions? I used a bit of sarcasm because again (IMO), we are setting a negative narrative in absence of information (at least in part) - Norton “…have plans for very little”. Really? Madnorton is entitled to his opinions of course, but if they include such statements expect to be challenged by someone - this is a discussion forum after all! If you want the definition of ‘condescending’, read your last sentence #31, with the tenor of the message in mind.

You are way more valuable to this forum than I am CG. You have technical knowledge and help out forum members - including myself from memory. But maybe it could be noted that this an enthusiasts forum as much as a technical one. It often doesn’t feel so and I wonder what prospective buyers take away. I sometimes look at my own 961 and it feels reduced/lesser by some of the stuff I read here - until I ride it next of course. You see a sub-standard bike being sold as a premium one and comment accordingly. I see the best bike I’ve ever owned - the most enjoyable riding and ownership experience that I’ve ever had. The only bike I’ve owned in 45 years that is a keeper. I suspect it is’nt sub-standard to too many on this forum - noting Nortons fixes.

Agreed - let’s get back to the subject and away from personal politics (and slurs). Nobody wants to read it.

Or is it part of the discussion?
Click to expand...
And that’s where you admit the problem.
It’s ok to love something and to ignore its flaws. But, The Norton 961 is not the best bike out there. Even if it was flawless, it’s still not the best.

If the 961 is the best bike you ever owned I’d hate to see the worst. What I still can’t understand is, you support TVS Nortons every move, stand behind all their choices and defend their every word, yet you snip at the cost of service / replacement parts.

You get offended when we disapprove of the inner workings and handling of TVS Norton, when things have been kept secret for 3 years now, it’s a bit concerning.

You have an opinion, and you voice your opinions and that is the sole purpose of a forum. But you’re so easily offended when others voice their opinions and dislikes.
You’re optimistic about everything and find the good in all, no matter what. That’s great. I wish I could be that way.
But you also call me Negatron. I’m ok with that title.
I just sniff out bullshit when I smell it. I don’t buy into the smoke and mirrors. I want to see and hear facts. I don’t believe in things I don’t see or hear first hand unless it’s shown or proven to me.

We all know TVS claim of spending multiple millions in a state of the art factory. We know they have lost money. We know they haven’t sold nearly any bikes. We know they claim to of made 300 changes. We know only what they want us to know.
What they continue to fail at is, prove it and show it. Talk is cheap.

For 3 years! They have not yet explained what the changes are to the 961 in detail. Why?
They haven’t until maybe recently, shown any new bikes.
They have not designed anything of their own.

They are BORING!
They suck at advertising
They fail miserably on social media and updates.
They are not attracting new, younger buyers.
I thought Harley was bad at catering to an age group. TVS has got that beat.
 
Voodooo said:
And that’s where you admit the problem.
It’s ok to love something and to ignore its flaws. But, The Norton 961 is not the best bike out there. Even if it was flawless, it’s still not the best.

If the 961 is the best bike you ever owned I’d hate to see the worst. What I still can’t understand is, you support TVS Nortons every move, stand behind all their choices and defend their every word, yet you snip at the cost of service / replacement parts.

You get offended when we disapprove of the inner workings and handling of TVS Norton, when things have been kept secret for 3 years now, it’s a bit concerning.

You have an opinion, and you voice your opinions and that is the sole purpose of a forum. But you’re so easily offended when others voice their opinions and dislikes.
You’re optimistic about everything and find the good in all, no matter what. That’s great. I wish I could be that way.
But you also call me Negatron. I’m ok with that title.
I just sniff out bullshit when I smell it. I don’t buy into the smoke and mirrors. I want to see and hear facts. I don’t believe in things I don’t see or hear first hand unless it’s shown or proven to me.

We all know TVS claim of spending multiple millions in a state of the art factory. We know they have lost money. We know they haven’t sold nearly any bikes. We know they claim to of made 300 changes. We know only what they want us to know.
What they continue to fail at is, prove it and show it. Talk is cheap.

For 3 years! They have not yet explained what the changes are to the 961 in detail. Why?
They haven’t until maybe recently, shown any new bikes.
They have not designed anything of their own.

They are BORING!
They suck at advertising
They fail miserably on social media and updates.
They are not attracting new, younger buyers.
I thought Harley was bad at catering to an age group. TVS has got that beat.
Click to expand...
And that’s where I ‘see‘ the problem Voodoo. You (and maybe others) seem to view/rate a bike almost entirely on performance (with some personal preferences no doubt) - we’ve discussed this before. And that’s just fine, for you. If it were based on that criteria the Norton is not even the best bike that I own!

Simply not possible for you (or anybody) to say a bike is or is not the best - the choice is personal, to state the obvious.

I’m saying it’s the best bike I’ve owned, all things considered and maybe it’s the stuff that you can’t measure via a statistic (or other preference) that you may not quite get - the imponderables if you like. Understandable, with respect, why should the average American look at a British bike for anything beyond performance and aesthetics - some may, I don’t know.

The heritage/history, marque, aesthetic, family link, patriotism, the very way riding and ownership make me feel is as important as performance, if not more. Let’s face it, none of us bought an air-cooled, push rod, parallel twin for outstanding performance! And no, I’m not saying it’s faultless - obviously!

Just by repeating something over and over again does not make it true mate. I do not think the 961 is the best bike out there for everyone. Nor do I defend/worship TVS’s every move - that’s just nonsense. I will admit to openly trying to add a little balance to the discussion though, to drag the conversation back to the middle ground slightly, when rampant negativity abounds and information is sparse. And maybe, give Norton Birmingham/TVS some credit for quite possibly having a plan, even though its difficult to see sometimes. Read what I write Voodoo - not what you choose to interpret.

Feel free to disbelieve everything you have’nt seen - your choice. ‘Claiming’ to have built a factory is a bit of a stretch though, I think people may have spotted it!😆 We might have seen a few re-engineered parts also, but no mind. You are also free to hit them around the head for not achieving all that you have detailed, 3 years into a 10 year plan.

Any chance we can lighten up though. There was a time when we could laugh at Negatron, Optimus, Statler and Waldorf!

TVS News-2023 Annual Report. Does no news equal good news, or does hiding the news mean something?
 
Interesting that there so many ideas above. But in the cold light of day the CEO sold a 10 year plan, and that would have included financial figures. I very much suggest that those figures are no longer relevant to the plan and a lot worse than expected or predicted. Their article in the MCN June 28th also suggests this is the case as they are now looking at producing lower premium bikes to a less wealthy buyer it seems.
Hands up all those that would buy into a 10 year plan that loses £29m each year and a sales volume that cannot even recover this figure to return a dividend at the 10 year point, not sure how Norton sugar coated that one or pulled the wool over the shareholders eyes, but 3.5 years into that plan they must now be able to see that that have been hoodwinked.
 
Well initially they had a range of development bikes that appeared to just need finishing and putting into production...which they would have based their projections on, I assume. For what ever reason, those were clearly found to be wanting, so were shelved. It's a drastic move, so there must have been some serious hurdles with the 650 range. There was most probably some very stressed people at Norton a few years ago, having to tell the gaffa that what they've got is not going to work, and they have nothing else in the pipe line....leaving them to go back to a platform that they'd already declared as seeing the last of its days.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top