I thoroughly enjoyed reading the article, my sole dispute would be regarding the cost of the Ergomatic cab. The tooling costs would be Sankey’s surely? " The cab was to become standard across the Leyland, Albion and AEC ranges with the aim of
achieving the production rate of 300 per week required to justify such a significant investment in tooling."
Certainly these costs would be reflected in the price paid per cab and presumably the contract stipulated a minimum number of units, but did Leyland really pay up front for the Sankey to set up a production line?
Carryfast:
Tomdhu:
essexpete:
ICan the original poster shed any light on the reason for that decision. It strikes me that all the ensuing mistakes would have possibly been avoided with a businessman /engineer at the helm.
In my view it came down to salesmanship. I guess Stokes persuaded Spurrier by dint of his salesmanship. He could sell anything. He was articulate, engaging, enthusiastic, and had a broad smile.
Markland was a Leyland student apprentice, as was Stokes. He was an engineer and fantastic man-manager. He had a strong personality and didnt suffer fools gladly but had great financial acumen.
Spurrier must have had a difficult choice to make!
At most Stokes could only have ‘persuaded’ the Leyland board to make William Black Spurrier’s successor.Which seems strange for someone who had a supposed vendetta against AEC.It was that replacement which caused Markland’s resignation in 1963 around 5 years before Stokes took over Spurriers/Black’s ptevious role.
And that’s the “Leyland expert” with his words of wisdom
Excellent read , the thing that sticks with me was the summing up , where you would have been happy for AEC to be merged with BMC rather than Leyland , would that have saved Leyland when ironically it was AEC who saw the short comings of a merger with BMC and went with the ill fated Leyland “merger” only for Stokes to dive in with two feet and sign up with BMC a few years later. I think the answer to the failings lies with one man … enter the resident Trucknet clown 
cav551:
I thoroughly enjoyed reading the article, my sole dispute would be regarding the cost of the Ergomatic cab. The tooling costs would be Sankey’s surely? " The cab was to become standard across the Leyland, Albion and AEC ranges with the aim of
achieving the production rate of 300 per week required to justify such a significant investment in tooling."
Certainly these costs would be reflected in the price paid per cab and presumably the contract stipulated a minimum number of units, but did Leyland really pay up front for the Sankey to set up a production line?
All seems moot when compared with the cab designs that were entering the scene from the French, Germans and Swedes.
Basically the Ergo cab had no place on anything other than a local distribution four wheeler so yet more massive amounts of cash thrown away to least effect.To add to the in house truck engine design and production fiasco and BMC doing it’s best to cancel out any profits made on the car side.
ramone:
Excellent read , the thing that sticks with me was the summing up , where you would have been happy for AEC to be merged with BMC rather than Leyland , would that have saved Leyland when ironically it was AEC who saw the short comings of a merger with BMC and went with the ill fated Leyland “merger” only for Stokes to dive in with two feet and sign up with BMC a few years later. I think the answer to the failings lies with one man … enter the resident Trucknet clown
So in your version of history Bill Lyons didn’t mistakenly bail out BMC based on BMC’s bent balance book figures and understated liabilities.Under pressure of BMCs bluff in buying out Jaguar’s body supplier laughably using Jaguars cash to do it.
Followed by the Labour government holding a gun at Stoke’s head to then bail out the resulting mess of BMH.
As opposed to Stokes and the government pulling his strings just rescuing Jaguar from the fraudulent merger and chucking BMC under the bus and sending in the dogs to investigate BMCs dodgy management and backers having effectively broke Jaguar by pirating Jaguars assets in a bent merger deal.
That’s where Stokes went wrong if anywhere.Followed by Michael Edwardes eventually finishing the job that BMC started.
ramone:
Carryfast:
ramone:
Excellent read , the thing that sticks with me was the summing up , where you would have been happy for AEC to be merged with BMC rather than Leyland , would that have saved Leyland when ironically it was AEC who saw the short comings of a merger with BMC and went with the ill fated Leyland “merger” only for Stokes to dive in with two feet and sign up with BMC a few years later. I think the answer to the failings lies with one man … enter the resident Trucknet clown
So in your version of history Bill Lyons didn’t mistakenly bail out BMC based on BMC’s bent balance book figures and understated liabilities.Under pressure of BMCs bluff in buying out Jaguar’s body supplier laughably using Jaguars cash to do it.
Followed by the Labour government holding a gun at Stoke’s head to then bail out the resulting mess of BMH.
As opposed to Stokes and the government pulling his strings just rescuing Jaguar from the fraudulent merger and chucking BMC under the bus and sending in the dogs to investigate BMCs dodgy management and backers having effectively broke Jaguar by pirating Jaguars assets in a bent merger deal.
That’s where Stokes went wrong if anywhere.Followed by Michael Edwardes eventually finishing the job that BMC started.
As anticipated
Ignore him Ramone, before he wrecks another interesting thread with his uneducated ramblings.
BMC is the only survivor, albeit now under Turkish Ownership.
BMC Turkey was formed in 1964 in İzmir by Ergün Özakat in partnership with the British Motor Corporation. The UK-based company held 26% of the capital, with the remainder belonging to the Turkish partners. Both Austin and Morris vehicles were manufactured at BMC Turkey under licence during its early years.[citation needed]
1966 was the first year BMC started adding truck, light truck, tractor and engine production in its product line. Turkish-made Leyland 6/98 diesel engines of 120 hp (89 kW) were used across the line by the late 1970s.
BMC Now:- BMC | Trucks & Bus
whisperingsmith:
BMC is the only survivor, albeit now under Turkish Ownership.
BMC Turkey was formed in 1964 in İzmir by Ergün Özakat in partnership with the British Motor Corporation. The UK-based company held 26% of the capital, with the remainder belonging to the Turkish partners. Both Austin and Morris vehicles were manufactured at BMC Turkey under licence during its early years.[citation needed]
1966 was the first year BMC started adding truck, light truck, tractor and engine production in its product line. Turkish-made Leyland 6/98 diesel engines of 120 hp (89 kW) were used across the line by the late 1970s.
BMC Now:- BMC | Trucks & Bus
I think Leyland survived but not as we knew it , now making small vans in Leyland and assembling DAFs
ramone:
whisperingsmith:
BMC is the only survivor, albeit now under Turkish Ownership.
BMC Turkey was formed in 1964 in İzmir by Ergün Özakat in partnership with the British Motor Corporation. The UK-based company held 26% of the capital, with the remainder belonging to the Turkish partners. Both Austin and Morris vehicles were manufactured at BMC Turkey under licence during its early years.[citation needed]
1966 was the first year BMC started adding truck, light truck, tractor and engine production in its product line. Turkish-made Leyland 6/98 diesel engines of 120 hp (89 kW) were used across the line by the late 1970s.
BMC Now:- BMC | Trucks & Bus
I think Leyland survived but not as we knew it , now making small vans in Leyland and assembling DAFs
It got bought out by the Chinese, now making LDV (Leyland Daf Vans) vans and utes, cheap and cheerful crap.
archive.commercialmotor.com/art … spokesman-
More info here, some may have already seen?