A little balance maybe. The only way for Norton Birmingham to make money is to sell motorcycles (spares, accessories/merchandise) - they have been doing so for just a few months, whilst developing a model lineup.
[ATTACH]107980[/ATTACH]
They have been in the ‘start-up‘ phase since purchasing the marque over 3 years ago. Every single logistical, structural, equipment, HR, brand building, design & developmental dollar since (possibly including business purchase price?) will show as a loss? Time and activity costs coin - the very reason the original investment dollars were provided. What do we expect the balance sheet for the last few years, this and (almost certainly) the next few to look like?
How many tens of million of (80’s) pounds did Bloor invest at Triumph, setting up over 10 or so years, before re-launching Triumph and starting to make a profit?
We all realise that Norton Birmingham has the advantage of a successful multinational motor company as owners however, my guess is that TVS has planned for the balance sheet to show significant losses over a business establishment period - and that shareholders are savvy enough to realise why this is required. They’re playing the long game right?
Who here is qualified to say that the current trajectory in either funding or time is wrong, inappropriate or terminal (from a business perspective)? Before they’ve even announced their (none-legacy) bike line-up or put in place any planned export links.
Has Norton/TVS made mistakes, almost certainly - will they make more, almost certainly. Show me a business that hasn’t. Will they ultimately succeed? We hope so, but who knows - it’s a massively competitive environment.
Not concerned if anybody thinks this is over-optimistic fan-boy content. In my opinion, and we’re all entitled to one, this is balanced middle ground commentary given that we don’t have a seat in Norton’s boardroom. Nor experience in running a multinational motorcycle company with revenue measured in the billions.
My opinion only.
