Wagoner to step down from GM immediately - Page 4

turbo6bar · 03-31-2009, 04:43 AM

The massive bailout injections are indirectly rewarding failure. I deleted the rest of my comments. We could take this to the alley; err, make that PARf.

widgeon13 · 03-31-2009, 04:47 AM

Rather than remove Wagoner, GM should have been forced into bankruptcy and Wagoner removed as a result of bankruptcy along with renegotiating the UAW contracts, dealing with legacy retirement benefits and total restructuring of the company. If Wagoner didn't want to go the bankruptcy route then he's out with no golden parachute.

No one person or group are more responsible for the failure of GM than Wagoner and the BofD. Gettelfing is part of the problem but he did not create the problem.

Shaun @ Tru6 · 03-31-2009, 04:49 AM

Thanks, but I've got a full day running 917s, so time is limited (you'll be getting one)

. The first bailouts were rewarding failure. With no ROI on those, Government had the balls to do what the Board would not.

jyl · jyl's Garage

Those of you wishing for a GM bankruptcy - it is sounding more and more like that is what you'll get.

widgeon13 · 03-31-2009, 05:25 AM

That's what should have happened in the first place. I was never wishing it would happen but that would have expedited the recovery more than this govt involvement and protracted business restructuring.

Porsche-O-Phile · Porsche-O-Phile's Garage

Don't want it but it's necessary. I'd rather it happen now and get it over with rather than six months from now when the economy is trying to cautiously poke its head out of its bunker and recover. A GM BK then would plunge the economy back into recession (or worse) for many more months.

This will help a recovery to happen faster. Better it all be now - quick and deep rather than long, drawn-out and shallow.

jyl · jyl's Garage

The govt involvement is inevitable.

Without lots of govt money, GM will not emerge from bankruptcy. Who but govt would provide $10BN+ of debtor-in-possession financing to GM?

Govt is not going to provide that money without involvement and some degree of control. Not after the AIG embarassment, and not with Wagoner's record.

dd74 · 03-31-2009, 08:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by milt

I just think your mind set is very Detroit. I really disagree with a rebadge. Where in history is the success is this venture?

I think historically, rebadging has worked phenomenally well. Wasn't the first Ford Explorer a rebadged Mazda? Isn't the Cadillac CTS part or mostly Opel? How much of a small Chevrolet is an Isuzu? And (lastly) lately, the most infamous rebadge is the Pontiac G8 (ex Holden), which to me should be Car of the Year.

dd74 · 03-31-2009, 08:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lendaddy

The problem is that GM cannot make a small car in the US that will turn a profit. They are inherently locked out of that market by the reality of their structure. Their only hope would be a rebadge.

In the short run, I agree. Now how do they market such a car in, for example, a television commercial?

"A Chevy built with the reliability and engineering of an Isuzu?" It sounds sort of strange, but could save GM's hide in the immediacy.

onewhippedpuppy · 03-31-2009, 08:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by turbo6bar

Not sure a government takeover via massive capital injection is capitalism. Capitalism is allowing GM to go into bankruptcy and emerge to start again. The lure of profits must be tempered by the risk of failure. Otherwise, we will make these mistakes, again.

Bingo. Nothing short of BK and restructuring will deliver the drastic changes required to save the company. New leadership aint gonna' cut it.