DEFENDER2.NET - View topic - LIGHTER, FASTER, FURTHER

↓ Advertise on Defender2 ↓

Home · FAQ · New Posts · My Posts · PMs · Search · Members · Map · Calendar · Profile · Donate · Register · Log In

Home > Off Topic > LIGHTER, FASTER, FURTHER

Page 2 of 2

Print this entire topic ·

Grenadier

Member Since: 23 Jul 2014
Location: The foot of Mont Blanc...
Posts: 5829

2011 Defender 110 Puma 2.4 DCPU Corris Grey

OT.

Mighty impressive sales for the Taycan, given its premium in price point. That would be my choice. Brute of a car.

Monsieur Le Grenadier

I've not been everywhere, but it's on my list.....

2011 Puma 110DC - Corris Grey

2nd Feb 2021 7:26am

mse

Member Since: 06 Apr 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 5038

2016 Defender 110 Puma 2.2 XS CSW Scotia Grey

Im just impressed Supacat is the foremost expert in the JLR business plan...im assuming the board pay you lots.

Otherwise, if you arent a JLR employee - its useless speculation that is just armchair rubbish that has no relevance in anything other than to start a set of supposed expert discussions.

Lets focus more on the cars we can buy, discounts, dealers etc than useless hypothesising on stuff you just are not close enough to know anything about Mike

2nd Feb 2021 9:43am

Supacat

Member Since: 16 Oct 2012
Location: West Yorkshire
Posts: 11018

2013 Defender 110 Puma 2.2 XS DCPU Keswick Green

if you don't like thread why join in...?

If you do join in, then share a few facts.

2nd Feb 2021 10:11am

mse

Member Since: 06 Apr 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 5038

Because its just silly - its not about liking or not its about balance and dealing will silliness no facts are needed because im not pushing a message.

But like i say how are you liking the 3 cars and access to the collection for being on the board Mike

2nd Feb 2021 1:14pm

Supacat

Member Since: 16 Oct 2012
Location: West Yorkshire
Posts: 11018

~ Message starts ~

mse wrote:
Good luck to JLR...

With JLR being a UK based company, we should be positive and support them to keep the thousands of uk workers, firms etc in business and be positive not negative

the last thing we want is to loose another manufacture

~ Message ends ~

2nd Feb 2021 3:04pm

Supacat

Member Since: 16 Oct 2012
Location: West Yorkshire
Posts: 11018

Hey mse, remember you saying this back at the beginning of February?

Remind me what JLR said at the end of the month...

Supacat wrote:
mse wrote:
As for the sales number irrelevant

Hardly ~ if you carry the overheads, plant, equipment, employees, etc for a capacity of 1 million cars and only ever sell half that volume, you are not going to make the returns necessary to survive.

That is the whole point.

JLR's most profitable years were NOT when it was selling most cars but when it was selling less but had a balanced company.

Additionally, the drive to upscale at a rate that was not manageable has created it's own issues, chief amongst them being reliability.

In the words of Henry Ford:

"A manufacturer is not through with his customer when a sale is completed. He has then only started with his customer. In the case of an automobile the sale of the machine is only something in the nature of an introduction. If the machine does not give service, then it is better for the manufacturer if he never had the introduction, for he will have the worst of all advertisements-a dissatisfied customer."

mse wrote:
Im just impressed Supacat is the foremost expert in the JLR business plan...im assuming the board pay you lots.

JLR Will Shed a Quarter of Its Production Capacity
https://www.defender2.net/forum/topic77029.html?highlight=bollore

15th May 2021 6:16pm

mse

Member Since: 06 Apr 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 5038

Lol...if only you knew

My point still standsthese posts are pointless. You going to lengths to break down sales numbers make baseless assumptions and state sales numbers remain less irrelevant...Like armchair legal advice useless naval gaining...just interested how much the board are paying you for the insight

Btw JLR moving up market eg less volume more premium is hardly a secret

And actually if you read my post, you’ll see ignoring jag, which I stated as different, exactly what I said is the point Mike

Last edited by mse on 15th May 2021 9:51pm. Edited 1 time in total

15th May 2021 9:47pm

mse

Member Since: 06 Apr 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 5038

Supacat wrote:
~ Message starts ~

mse wrote:
Good luck to JLR...

With JLR being a UK based company, we should be positive and support them to keep the thousands of uk workers, firms etc in business and be positive not negative

the last thing we want is to loose another manufacture

~ Message ends ~

Very valid post. We should continue to support uk based company and thousands of uk workers.

Although clearly you are against that...so sad Mike

15th May 2021 9:49pm

Supacat

Member Since: 16 Oct 2012
Location: West Yorkshire
Posts: 11018

mse wrote:
Lol...if only you knew

Oh do tell...

mse wrote:
You going to lengths to break down sales numbers make baseless assumptions

I think I nailed the core issue, ignored by the clueless flag wavers.

mse wrote:
and state sales numbers remain less irrelevant

Part gibberish, and probably the opposite to what you actually meant "less irrelevant"?

Oh course to some the actual facts of the business, selling cars, gets in the way of their opinions. So let's have more threads with less actual facts, just flag waving and prejudices.

mse wrote:
useless naval gaining.

More gibberish.

mse wrote:
JLR moving up market eg less volume more premium is hardly a secret

Funny how you are wise after the fact ~ when did you know?

And why knowing that production was going to be cut by 25% did you want them to keep the staff?

mse wrote:
With JLR being a UK based company, we should be positive and support them to keep the thousands of uk workers

That sort of overhead burden is exactly how you drive the company you want to support into the ground. It's not being positive, it's being completely unrealistic. Easy to do when you don't want to look hard at the facts and figures but just wave flags.

mse wrote:
and the market share point, they LR have hold what the have, bar minor changes, reasonably consistently for year.

I'll have a go at making sense of this statement...

Do you mean LR sales have, year on year, been consistent?

Or

If you are introducing market share, then SUV sales have seen huge growth in the 5 years with many new players, so for LR to maintain market share, it would have to have year on year sales growth matching that?

In either case you'd be wrong by a long way.

16th May 2021 6:06am

Page 2 of 2

All times are GMT

Jump to

< Previous Topic | Next Topic >

Posting Rules

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum