Norton trouble

After all that I have read I still do not believe that Garner’s original intent was a get rich slowly scheme, to wreck the marque and steal everyones money; ponzi scheme or other. More likely he was intent on making Norton a success and covering himself in cash and glory in the process.

Truth be known I think that he was just really crap at business, especially the bike business. His propensity to bend the rules due to his ‘invincibility’ got ever greater as he got in deeper and deeper. Desperation led to dodgy dealings and deeper debt, and any measure to save the sinking ship in his eyes became justified. I suspect that right up until the end his arrogance led him to believe that he could turn the ship around. Now it has floundered on the rocks he will hopefully pay for his crimes. Thanks for my 961 Stuart - hope you get that many years.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, that’s pretty much how I see it.

I think SG is guilty / a victim of the following: “ones strength is often also ones weakness”.

What I mean is, his strengths were in finding funding, and grants, selling the dream, stretching his lon elf credit to the limit and beyond, moving money around ‘wheels within wheels’ etc, stretching the boundaries, handling huge stress, bending the rules, etc.

But, because these were his strengths, it allowed him to build a house of cards, that was one layer too high. And so done it came.

The irony is, had he succeeded, history would have lauded him as a business guru, saviour, etc. He’d have made even more money selling his knowledge, methods, story, etc.

So personally, I’m still thinking this is more a case of criminal activity through ineptitude rather than intent.

But either way, I do believe he crossed the line into criminal activity.
 
Trouble with the good egg turned bad theory is the fraudulent behaviour started between 2009 and 2011.

https://www.superbike.co.uk/article/norton-was-it-a-fraud-from-the-start

JH: When did you realise things weren’t as they should be?

ST: By late 2009 I knew that we were in trouble, but I didn’t find out what he’d done to me and Spondon until 2011. It was actually Stuart’s father that told me. He informed me that he thought that Stuart had had me over. I said “I don’t see how he can! I’m a fifty percent shareholder in Spondon which is a limited company. I was running the company day to day and Stuart never came any where near it. What can he do?” Garner’s dad just said “Stuart, you need to do some checking”. We got in touch with Companies House and the Land Registry, to my horror It turned out that almost immediately after buying Bob’s share, Stuart had charged the entire assets of Spondon Engineering, including my shareholding, to Tudor Capital Management for £1.2 million. Without my knowledge. This £1.2 million was the money he took to America and used to buy the Norton brand with.
 
To StevenSpencer & Fastfreddie I think both of you are being a little naive. There was a game of Russian Roulette being played behind everybody's back, even with the pensions which was originally only meant to be a 5 year investment, but could any of them get their money back from Stuart Garner after 5 years? A handful of those pension investors took SG to court after 7 years because he had not got the slightest intention of honouring the contract, as he appeared to be on other contracts, a tiger / lion doesn't change it's spots. . . .
Even when he found out that the friends of his who were jailed for their involvement in obtaining pensions investment, did he return their money?
SG is a repeat offender, he wanted a house in the country, which he got, he wanted prestige cars in his driveway, which he got, he doesn't give a f**k that it was all with other peoples money to obtain this lavish lifestyle- if I can see that, why can't you?
 
Last edited:
Bernhard said:
To StevenSpencer & Fastfreddie I think both of you are being a little naive. There was a game of Russian Roulette being played behind everybody's back, even with the pensions which was originally only meant to be a 5 year investment, but could any of them get their money back from Stuart Garner after 5 years? A handful of those pension investors took SG to court after 7 years because he had not got the slightest intention of honouring the contract, as he appeared to be on other contracts, a tiger / lion doesn't change it's spots. . . .
Even when he found out that the friends of his who were jailed for their involvement in obtaining pensions investment, did he return their money?
SG is a repeat offender, he wanted a house in the country, which he got, he wanted prestige cars in his driveway, which he got, he doesn't give a f**k that it was all with other peoples money to obtain this lavish lifestyle- if I can see that, why can't you?
Click to expand...
Bernhard said:
To StevenSpencer & Fastfreddie I think both of you are being a little naive. There was a game of Russian Roulette being played behind everybody's back, even with the pensions which was originally only meant to be a 5 year investment, but could any of them get their money back from Stuart Garner after 5 years? A handful of those pension investors took SG to court after 7 years because he had not got the slightest intention of honouring the contract, as he appeared to be on other contracts, a tiger / lion doesn't change it's spots. . . .
Even when he found out that the friends of his who were jailed for their involvement in obtaining pensions investment, did he return their money?
SG is a repeat offender, he wanted a house in the country, which he got, he wanted prestige cars in his driveway, which he got, he doesn't give a f**k that it was all with other peoples money to obtain this lavish lifestyle- if I can see that, why can't you?
Click to expand...


Err
Tigers and Lions don't have spots, that'll be leopards and cheetahs you mean ?
 
Bernhard said:
To StevenSpencer & Fastfreddie I think both of you are being a little naive. There was a game of Russian Roulette being played behind everybody's back, even with the pensions which was originally only meant to be a 5 year investment, but could any of them get their money back from Stuart Garner after 5 years? A handful of those pension investors took SG to court after 7 years because he had not got the slightest intention of honouring the contract, as he appeared to be on other contracts, a tiger / lion doesn't change it's spots. . . .
Even when he found out that the friends of his who were jailed for their involvement in obtaining pensions investment, did he return their money?
SG is a repeat offender, he wanted a house in the country, which he got, he wanted prestige cars in his driveway, which he got, he doesn't give a f**k that it was all with other peoples money to obtain this lavish lifestyle- if I can see that, why can't you?
Click to expand...
Friends? You might need to visit that one again, partners in crime more like. One thing the press go on about is how the pension advisors went to court, but nothing about Simon Colfer who according the Web had a sentence back in 2009, no mention of this, and then garner went on to use him.
 
Madnorton said:
Friends? You might need to visit that one again, partners in crime more like. One thing the press go on about is how the pension advisors went to court, but nothing about Simon Colfer who according the Web had a sentence back in 2009, no mention of this, and then garner went on to use him.
Click to expand...

Garner used EVERYONE!!!!! As if you didn't know!
 
trident sam said:
Yes well I don't know what you know do I.
You also called Fast Eddie - Fast Freddie , after picking someone up a while ago for getting your name wrong.
Are you just a smart arse ?
Click to expand...

I'm not on the computer where I can copy and paste, so I don't have an excuse:)
 
I’ve already stated that IMHO SG strayed into criminal territory. As Kommando points out, this could in fact have been as early as 2009.

Personally, I’m neither denying or defending any of the above. I think he is guilty of criminal acts and I think (and hope) he suffers the full weight of the law for any such actions.

But I’m still not (quite) convinced SG set out on a deliberate Ponzi scheme path. If he had, I think he could have done less, spent less, etc.

Looking at what he tried to do with the V4 and 650s etc I’m of the opinion that he wanted the company to genuinely succeed.

This is in no way saying that he was some kind of altruist. I’m quite sure his intent all along was to shower himself in riches and glory.

And Bernhard, I know self isolating is stressful for us all, but please, do calm down and try to express yourself like a grown up.
 
I've searched high and low for it, but to no avail, but I'm sure in one of his very first interviews after acquiring the Norton name, when asked why he'd done so, SG's first words were: 'To make money, first and foremost I'm an entrepreneur...' Not sure if that was semi tongue in cheek, as he countered it immediately with the 'motorbike enthusiast, historical etc.' platitudes... But it did show an early moment of honesty...
 
I'm not sure about criminal intent or activity. Immoral certainly, but I'm certain if you were to look at the activity of the top execs of the top 1k companies you would find instances of dubious, immoral activity. We don't have to go far back to see what our banks were up to in the mortgage market, similar activity to SG but on an unbelievable scale. My neighbour, a Snap-On rep., operates in a very similar way, selling and re-selling the same tool cabinet to folk on the never-never knowing full well they can ill-afford the repayments. Immoral yes, but kept just inside the boundaries of the law.
 
Norton wanted £44,000 as a deposit for a V4 upfront, did that not set anyone's alarm bells ringing?
Moral of the story, don't put a hefty deposit on anything unless you have got the money held by escrow that will absolutely pay either party if, when bike is delivered. A fool and his money are soon parted, as true now as it ever was.
 
The final judgement on SG will hopefully come in a UK criminal court.

Its a fine line between a total scam from the start or he just got sucked in as time went on, it perfectly possible he thought he could make a go of Norton for a period. However this is also overshadowed by the forging of Stuart Tiller's signature to get the assets of Spondon to underwrite the initial £1M loan in 2009. If he had then 'Gone Straight' and made a success of Norton does that make the signature forging go away. My opinion is that it would not hence my opinion he was fraudulent from the start. But its only an opinion.
 
No doubt SG was a shyster (read criminal) from the start in his business practices, for that he should be held to account. Jail time methinks. He did not however, in my opinion, set out to become a walking, talking international pariah, by trashing the worlds most famous motorcycle marque and stealing everyone’s money. Why would he purposefully seek to do so.

I agree that he probably had no real true interest in Norton beyond the opportunity it presented to generate wealth, power and prestige. A get rich scheme that turned into a get rich at all cost scheme. It is probably disengenuous to claim however that he never, at any time, wanted Norton to succeed. Even if only for his own personal enrichment.

Bernhard my friend, this is an enthusiasts discussion forum where personal opinions are welcomed and encouraged. We don’t all need to follow yours. More acceptance less accusations. Plenty of good people were sucked in by SG, hiding behind a brand supported by the government and lorded by the motorcycle press. They were not all fools.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

S
Hard starting, trouble idling, boyer failing?
2
Replies
29
Views
647
Torontonian
Torontonian
P
Trouble getting VIP membership
Replies
4
Views
131
Peteyoung75
P
jay*mac
norton connecting rods
2
Replies
33
Views
1,017
jay*mac
jay*mac
fiatfan
Transmission trouble
Replies
10
Views
688
fiatfan
fiatfan
peebee
Assistance from Norton.
Replies
14
Views
493
Fast Eddie
Fast Eddie
Back
Top