Talk:British Motor Holdings

Name

The difference between British Motor Holdings Limited and The British Motor Corporation Limited is no more than the name. If it is unclear could we discuss the matter here? Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 10:30, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

My memory of reading the English newspapers of the time is that BMH was the result of the merger between BMC and Jaguar, even if it took a few weeks between the announcement and the formal creation of BMH. However, I was quite young and really only picked out the entry in the Mail or possibly the Telegraph because the article appeared to concern cars. I liked cars. My memory is NOT infallible, and if you have a written source (ideally one which you believe) for the belief that BMH was merely a name change inflicted on BMC for ... some reason known only to the gods concerned, do go with it.

The wiki entry rather skates around the circumstances of the creation of BMH, even if its end is recorded. I always thought of BMH as a merger. If it was an acquisition, whereby BMC actually paid for Jaguar, what did they use for money? Either way, if you have the source and the time, it would be interesting to see in this wiki entry a little more on the creation of BMH rather than merely on its demise. Regards Charles01 (talk) 10:49, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Power grab, acquisition, merger, takeover

Whichever it really is/was, so far as is possible it will be labelled a "merger" so it doesn't frighten horses, children, employees, investing public etc. Eddaido (talk) 23:11, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Minnow

Jaguar was very much a minnow. Pressed Steel employed 26,000 at the time it disappeared into BMC. Pressed Steel did almost everything for Jaguar yet Jaguar was a small customer to Pressed Steel. Can anyone find how many Jaguar employed in 1966?

The answer appears to be around 7,000 because that was the number at the time of the creation of BL in 1968. Eddaido (talk) 06:12, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Lyons recognised he was unable to remain "independent" and that is why he elected to stay still between the rock and the hard place and minimise the pain of the rape of his business.

See my copy-typing from the newspapers of 1966 (which will appear, if I can manage it) below but I really do not understand why other editors rely on their "memories" when they can read the facts in old newspapers for themselves. Belong to a library? then you can access them from your home at absolutely no personal cost. All the references have been provided for you you just do not bother to take them up and as I have just pointed out they are very easily accessible to so many if not all of you!

Is all this just not more of the strange (and far too successful) WP syndrome of "I don't believe you", "I like my idea of events better", to the bitter end when the editor concerned does not care enough to try to find out for him or her self? Eddaido (talk) 23:11, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Name again

It was stated at the time that in view of the changed nature of the business it had been decided to change the name of the holding company to British Motor Holdings. I suppose half a century later Jaguar alone is still recognisable and it is forgotten how small it was. Most WP articles about cars and their manufacturing businesses are written by editors interested in just the product and any "personalities" they might choose to find. Eddaido (talk) 23:11, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Clay

Cassius Clay redirects to Mohammed Ali so using that precedent then we should make the article British Motor Corporation a redirect to British Motor Holdings and not have two different articles. Will give the above my best attention in about another 12 hours, regards, Eddaido (talk) 11:38, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Jaguars to join up with B.M.C. from our Motoring Correspondent. The Times, Tuesday, Jul 12, 1966; pg. 1; Issue 56681

"Under a jointly agreed £18,200,000 deal announced last night, the Jaguar group of companies and the British Motor Corporation are to merge. In financial terms it is a take-over of Sir William Lyons's Coventry company by Sir George Harriman's Longbridge giant, the result of which will be a new group, comprising Jaguar, BMC and Pressed Steel-Fisher."

"Sir George Harriman, BMC's chairman , said the merger should be seen as a joining of forces designed to strengthen the motor industry in general. Jaguar will continue to operate as a separate entity "and with the greatest practical degree of autonomy" still under the chairmanship of Sir William Lyons, who is 65. Sir George Harriman is to be chairman of the new group and Sir William a director."

"News of the merger did not come as a surprise in the motor industry, where it had been known for some time negotiations were in the offing. . . . "

"BMC as Great Britain's biggest vehicle manufacturer hold 42 per cent of the market represented by an annual production of about 890,000, currently running at 19,500 units a week. Jaguar will give them only an extra 2 per cent of the market. or 30,000 vehicles per year.

Estimated production of cars and commercial vehicles in the UK 1965

Brand	Quantity		Share
BMC	890,000		40%
Jaguar	30,000		1%
BMH		920,000	42%
Standard-Triumph	125,000		6%
Rover	25,000		1%
Leyland		150,000	7%
Ford		590,000	27%
Vauxhall		333,000	15%
Rootes		220,000	10%
Rolls-Royce		1,200	0%
Total		2,214,200	100%

Terms for Jaguar Shareholders

From our City Editor
"The British Motor Corporation bid of £18,200,000 for Jaguar cars in financial terms is a take-over, but from a management point of view it will not happen in that way." (hush, children)

"The intention is for Jaguar BMC and Pressed Steel-Fisher to form a new group with a single holding company on top to be called British Motor (Holdings) under the chairmanship of Sir George Harriman, the present chairman of BMC. Sir William Lyons, chairman of Jaguar, will have a place on this main board. There is no question of the Jaguar name disappearing." (see—nothing will change, really)

"The terms offered to shareholders in Jaguar (the chairman and his family control more than half the voting shares) are:
for each A ordinary share, two ordinary shares of British Motor Corporation, plus 10s. 3d. of a new 7¾ per cent unsecured loan stock;
for each ordinary share, two ordinary shares of BMC plus 22s. 6d. of the new 7¾ percent unsecured loan stock.
This puts a value on the widely held A shares (those without a vote) of 38s. each which compares with a closing price last night of 32s."

I do not know the answer but history will have on record the fate (and the fate of their investment) of the Jaguar shareholders who took BMC (BL) shares and "unsecured loan stock" Still, Jaguar might well have gone bust all by itself. Eddaido (talk) 00:08, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Sterling wilts again after bright start. by our City Editor, The Times, Tuesday, Jul 12, 1966; pg. 15; Issue 56681.

B.M.C. / Jaguar
"BMC is not in the habit of making generous bids (see the offer for Pressed Steel) so its terms for Jaguar will be examined carefully. . . . Accurate assessment, it must be admitted at once, is impossible in the absence of Jaguar's profit figures for the year, which will close at the end of this month. Sir William Lyons, the chairman, refused to be drawn on this point yesterday evening. But on the 1964-65 outturn, Jaguar is being valued at around 11 times earnings. Two points can be made about this. It is a low price for a company with obvious potential whatever its latest figures may show. And, secondly, it is the sort of bargain-basement price which may tempt others to make a higher offer: Leyland for instance?

"Certainly it is international considerations which have occasioned the merger proposal. The plain fact is that the British motor industry is more widely fragmented than any other of the major producing countries." Eddaido (talk) 00:37, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

BMC offer unconditional, by our City Editor, The Times, Wednesday, Aug 31, 1966; pg. 12; Issue 56724. or its all over Rover

"BMC's offer has now been declared unconditional, acceptances having been received in respect of over 86 per cent of the ordinary and over 81 per cent of the "A" ordinary shares. BMC will continue to take acceptances until further notice." Note that the interest rate on the unsecured loan stock had been increased from 7¾ to 8 per cent. Eddaido (talk) 00:37, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Where are we going with this?

Ok, so where are we going with this? Is there a recommendation there somewhere? GTHO (talk) 07:36, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

We-ell, all the above is to explain the grouping of BMC, Pressed Steel and Jaguar and BMH,
first BMC took over Jaguar cars (Lyons was powerless and had to accept it)—even more insulting it was thought by commentators to be a low price for his company—then BMC changed its name because it had taken over quite big Pressed Steel with 27,000 people and, a minor point, Jaguar with maybe a quarter of the number of employees so its business might be considered to have changed its nature (though not much). Finally BMC only changed its name - just like the boxer.

So, maybe this article should stay something like it is now or perhaps be improved so the reader can take the above points on board? regards, Eddaido (talk) 08:10, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Where are we going with this? - Thoughts

Spelling out the sources like this is certainly helpful. Thank you. I don't believe everything I read in newspapers - these days in England I believe very little of it - but back in the 1960s UK newspaper editors were more interested in truth than they appears to have become fifty years on, and these news reports actually tell a very consistent story.

A screamingly missing piece is just how much money Jaguar had managed to lose in the period immediate preceding the creation of BMH. Their failure to invest in new models, preferring to upgrade little by little the car we remember as the Mark II, and the failure of the Mark X to take off in the market place when compared to the Mark VII to some extent tell their own story. Overall the UK market was doing rather well in the early 1960s, with the Rover & Triumph 2000s by 1966 taking market share that five years earlier Jaguar might have considered their own. I guess to some extent this tells its own story. The Mark X, as far as I recall, was known as very large (blame the buying power of the Americans?) but not very reliable (so maybe relevant Americans with buying power preferred to buy from Stuttgart...?)

As far as the wiki entry is concerned (ah yes, that....) I DO think these sources do give scope to spell out in more detail than hitherto the creation of BMH. This is, after all, headed as an entry on BMH (not on BMC and not on BLMC). It was a take-over widely seen and interpreted and presented as a merger. Please, someone, do it.... Or rather, since I started writing this note, someone is doing it. Thank you. Regards Charles01 (talk) 10:09, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm all for Improving the article. In fact that is what I thought I was doing when I corrected the "predecessor" line in the Infobox from Austin/Morris etc to BMC. Do we now agree that the "predecessor" of BMH was BMC? GTHO (talk) 10:22, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

So you would say Cassius Clay was the predecessor of Mohammed Ali? I thought predecessor was something to do with dying before (someone else). I don't deny there is a problem at this point I just do not think that is an acceptable solution. My best solution would be that the article disappears and becomes a redirect and there is perhaps an extra section added to the BMC article. How does that . . . feel? Eddaido (talk) 11:07, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I would keep them (BMC and BMH entries) separate, but it's partly a question of perception. I generally don't like merged articles because the more you merge the more you have multiple strands in a single entry. It takes longer to download (at least on the UK's third world telekoms infrastructure) and longer to read - which even Korean level ISPs wouldn't cure. And where there are more strands, it becomes harder to pick out the individual strand that one was intending to learn about. But I suppose spaghetti is not necessarily the only nor even best metaphor, even for something as confused an multi-directinal as the trajectory of the UK motors industry during the second half of the twentieth century.

On both BMC and BMH there's scope for more detailed entries - more chronological (and some readers might say dull, but they don't have to read it) detail on what happened and then on what happened next and etc.

Hmmmm. Regards Charles01 (talk) 12:27, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Very confusing section in the article

1967 Benn - join Leyland it has Donald Stokes

On 17 January 1968 BMH merged with the smaller prosperous Leyland Motor Corporation to form the British Leyland Motor Corporation (BLMC) on a one-for-one share exchange, valuing BMH at £201 million. BMH had reported a £3.4 million loss for 1966/7.

When last I heard, the point of an encyclopedia was to inform and the point of a section title was to summarize the content of the section. A reader looking for information is going to read the title of the section quoted above, read the text of the section, and find absolutely no connection between the title and the text. The text does not mention Benn or Stokes, nor, for that matter, does it mention 1967. In fact, the only mention of Donald Stokes in the entire article is in that section title, so readers of the article, who can be assumed to be uninformed and looking for information, will have not the first clue as to who Donald Stokes is or what his presence at Leyland has to do with anything. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 11:01, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I presume the title was from someone who intended to write more but didn't or else from someone who did write more that then got unwritten. Either way, the UK political scene is a player in the story of BMH - a big player but only a player - and it doesn't make much sense to write headlines as though the defining subject of the entry was British politics, especially where the content of the ensuing para is of only marginal relevance to the headline. I've replaced the title. Feel fee to replace it with something else if you find my knee-jerk replacement sub-optimal. Regards Charles01 (talk) 12:18, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your support. Your "knee-jerk replacement" was an improvement, but I have replaced it with something that summarizes the text a bit better. At least, I think it does; please let me know if I am wrong. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 12:44, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest that is just another carefully aimed low quality cry for attention—like referring Daimler for assessment—and it will get fixed by another editor. Regards, Eddaido (talk) 23:21, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

The low quality of that section title really did cry for attention, and, thankfully, it got it. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 01:11, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, a copy editor deliberately limits his horizons? I don't know. A reader of an encyclopedia might remember reading about Benn a few lines above, might look in Leyland a line below and find Stokes and might realise that the 17 January is but a few days after 31 December seeing they must be of inquiring mind to have got as far as this.
A Wikipedia editor might be grateful for the pointers in the right direction to improve the article rather than responding like a particularly totally negative copy editor. Do you know what Cat's Paw means? Regards, Eddaido (talk) 01:26, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Innuendo and cryptic remarks do not help readers of an encyclopedia. Clear and understandable content do. The reader would want to know who Donald Stokes was and why Benn would want him in the same organization as BMH's component companies. The reader hasn't come to be challenged, or to be part of a game of "pass the fool a little farther", he or she has come to be informed. If you have the info to add, please add it. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 02:00, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

See how badly she wants the attention? There is a whole long dreary history of this behaviour, readily accessible. Regards, Eddaido (talk) 02:06, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Please limit your comments to the improvement of the article, as per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 02:24, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

But indeed I do, indeed I do. Eddaido (talk) 02:36, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

The marques

I find the information in the article under the above heading somewhat confusing. Firstly the reference given relates to the formation of BLMC, not BMH. Secondly the phrase "a millions copies". What does that mean? Thirdly, this section would seem to be better placed before "Merger with Leyland" rather than after it. GTHO (talk) 10:42, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I wrote a long carefully reasoned reply last night. I decided, mostly laziness, to sleep on it. I still have it. Here's a different approach: the important point I am anxious to communicate to the reader is that Jaguar was then when put beside the 4th largest motor vehicle manufacturer in the world not very significant. As it is worded without an indication of the sheer quantities involved (which you removed) it belittles BMH. How do we get a more accurate image to the reader? Eddaido (talk) 22:26, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I have made a couple of changes to the "Marques" section, hopefully to the satisfaction of all concerned. GTHO (talk) 10:35, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I've had an uncomfortable look at the articles on British Leyland and its components and cannot see my way into helping in the massive review that I think should be carried out. (Not so much to change facts but just to simplify and improve readability). I note that there is no article on British Leyland Motor Corporation but that there is an article on British Leyland. I'm not sure that is OK but what matters right now is I feel more sure than ever that this article on British Motor Holdings is superfluous and should be made a simple redirect to the appropriate section of BMC - like this. That section with its environs seems to me to incorporate everything in this BMH article that need be kept. What do you think? Eddaido (talk) 08:48, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Two thoughts on this.

1. British Leyland Motor Corporation and British Leyland and BLMC are three names for the same thing. I don't see any merit in a p**ing contest over which is a "better" name. A redirect page can be set up (one already appears to have been set up) for people who enter BLMC in order to access the entry on British Leyland.

2. You opine - and I agree - that the BLMC entry is a bit of a mess. The tendency for entries to become a mess intensifies each time you try and cram extra strands into it. You, while adding to it, may know how you intended it to end up, but it never ends up. It keeps evolving thanks to twenty different contributors each with his / her own perfectly good (but often incompatible) ideas about how the thing should end up. Persuading the BMH entry into the BMC entry simply risks making the BMC entry less coherent, especially since many of us have difficulty remembering the difference and risk writing / thinking BMC even when (for instance in 1967...) BMH is likely to be the corporation/conglomerate/mess we had in mind. Also there is a lot of detail in the BMH entry (including no fewer than 7 sources, my hat!) that we should not risk losing. At the moment the BMH entry is pretty coherent. There's a heightened risk of growing incoherence with the BMC entry because of the nature of the beast - BMC it kept adding bits, changing direction, losing bits or "marques" (always a difficult word on which to find an agreed definition). I don't really think that the benefits of subsuming the BMH entry into the BMC entry outweigh the risk of damage.

Best wishes Charles01 (talk) 09:46, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

OK. Is what I've just done a help or hindrance? The long list of brands which were by then only name plates on vehicles part of a unified range I think was quite surplus to requirements. What do you people think? Best, Eddaido (talk) 11:20, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh dear. Well, you've made me think about it. That's good. The statement about a "unified range" is certainly a powerful thought trigger. I'm not sure what the adjective "unified" means in this context. I'd have thought that as ranges go, it was more dysfunctional than unified. Morris Minor, Austin/Morris 1100/1300 and till 1967 Austin A40 all competing against each other. Ditto the 1800/2200 and Farina sedans. And from left field notquiteDaimlers and Jaguars. And all those competing sports cars you list not quite generating the revenues to fund more than, from time to time, the odd rather feeble facelift. I guess it was a bit more coherent at the level of the Mini, though even at the time some of us had difficulty seeing the point of the Wolseley Hornet/Rilet Elf variants. Taken together, it's a marketing man's nightmare when you're trying to allocate your S&M budget. Unified? Hrmmmmph. Ultimately how you set out the information is always going to be a matter of personal preference. I found the vertical list of "brands" aka at the time "makes" (I would myself have avoided the word "marques" because no one will agreee on what it means) quite eloquent testimony to the number of brands. But I would not man the barricades against you if you prefer to list them in a horizontal line, grouped Jaguar/Daimler/Guy and Austin/Morris/MG/Riley/Wolseley if you prefer that approach. I DO think it is quite important, somehow, to list the brands though, because with the wisdom of hindsight - and Ford Vauxhall would have said even at the time - the badge engineering was at best a controversial approach to marketing the cars. It could be argued that all those name plates, reflecting all the poorly digested acquisitions of earlier decades, were both the core problem and a symptom of the muddle that was Harriman's empire in 1967. Hmmm & Regards Charles01 (talk) 12:00, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I just took another look at the entry. Sorry. I stopped at the table because I like tables; and because in another life I used to be an auditor I added up the %s. I was unable to come to less than 100%. I suppose if the table comes from an irrefutable source I'd better shut up. But from memory (so not much of a source) I know that in the mid-1960s the Brits were already buying significant numbers of VW Beetles (my father had one) and Renault 4s (though these sold even better after people got used to the funny shape and BLMC stopped making the Morris Minor Traveller) and not a few Fiat 124s. Also a small but steady trickle of Mercedes sold to people who could afford them and didn't trust a Jaguar to start on a cold damp morning. Oh dear, why does it keep coming back to the awfulness of BMH products? I hope I don't read as though have an axe to grind, but I did once own a Morris Minor Traveller. Don't get me started on the brakes, because I'll have trouble stopping. Not entirely inappropriately. Why should you care about a table? Well, you are working on the entry, and you have got access to some good sources..... Regards Charles01 (talk) 12:21, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Chee, could a Morris Minor be competing with anything at all by 1965? and the same with the elegant little A40 hatchback. The 1100 was about to become the nation's best selling single car. You could choose between an 1800 and (you say Farina) A60 but I do not see them as competing though I do see them wearing any old one of those once-listed in the article brand-names. I do not change my statement, it was a unified range wearing a whole lot of different labels. The only in BMC/H competition in the sports cars was the Spridget competing with itself and that's just more badge engineering. If you want to list out the old labels horizontally that's finr by me, it takes up less room but it is all just so-o-o repetitive.

Is not / Was not badge engineering just a marketing strategy? Is it my fault if you are unable to tot up a column of percentages? It must be right, its what my spreadsheet told me and I worried myself for a while (knowing the nature of the audience) and all I can think of is that there must be two numbers there right on half of one percent. I got called back into this by GTHO, by trying to deal with his concerns. If we have to have this BMH article then we must have in Wikipedia an article about British Leyland Motor Corporation. Have a nice Saturday, GTHO and I have near spent ours. Eddaido (talk) 05:40, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

• I support the retention of a separate BMH article.

OK but then we should have a separate article about British Leyland Motor Corporation, its the same story.

• I do not support the removal of the list of marques which I believe was informative, relevant and would have been of interest to many readers.

but it is listed in dead boring detail just everywhere! What do you think of Chas01's suggestion?

• I do not support the addition of an unreferenced production data table which goes way beyond the companies which are relevant to this article.

It shows where this business fitted into its industry - on top of the whole of it. It was half of all of it (and declining)

• I do not support the changing of a referenced comparative production statistic (Jaguar production for 1965) with a different figure which is not supported by the (unchanged) reference. GTHO (talk) 00:05, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. We badly need a good source of statistics on this industry. Here is one or here (scroll down) but it looks like there may be a fee for going back into history? Eddaido (talk) 05:40, 8 June 2013 (UTC)