ROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEXROLEX

watchnut · 23 May 2007, 12:48 AM

Wilsdorf is dead?!

Lane from s.c. · 23 May 2007, 12:55 AM

Toyota is a stand alone company and they are the best and the most sound of any car company. I believe rolex is and would be a stronger company as a stand alone instead of a bunch of numb nuts coming in and firing half the brains because some other brand has some brains in their engn. dept. And yes, I no this a moot point as rolex is not for sale nor will they be. I`m not against all M&A but I have had my share with this maddness thats why I own my own companys.

Regards,
Lane

President · 23 May 2007, 12:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by watchnut

Wilsdorf is dead?!

Yes.

President · 23 May 2007, 01:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lane from s.c.

Toyota is a stand alone company and they are the best and the most sound of any car company. I believe rolex is and would be a stronger company as a stand alone instead of a bunch of numb nuts coming in and firing half the brains because some other brand has some brains in their engn. dept. And yes, I no this a moot point as rolex is not for sale nor will they be. I`m not against all M&A but I have had my share with this maddness thats why I own my own companys.

Regards,
Lane

Are you saying a Toyota is better than a German-engineered Rolls-Royce just because they're owned by BMW?

Lane from s.c. · 23 May 2007, 01:22 AM

Toyota is great at making cars and money.(I would not drive one though) RR is not a impressive car. And yes I have riding and driven them, including their brother Bently. I don`t know why anyone would want one unless maybe you are trying to impress someone. Cars and watches are prolly not a good comparison. But if anyone wants to re-read my post I used the word OPINION which means a judgment,impression and not based on absolute certainty. Over and out. Everyone have a great day and I`m sure everyone Is right.

Lane

President · 23 May 2007, 01:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lane from s.c.

Toyota is great at making cars and money.(I would not drive one though) RR is not a impressive car. And yes I have riding and driven them, including their brother Bently. I don`t know why anyone would want one unless maybe you are trying to impress someone. Cars and watches are prolly not a good comparison. But if anyone wants to re-read my post I used the word OPINION which means a judgment,impression and not based on absolute certainty. Over and out. Everyone have a great day and I`m sure everyone Is right.

Lane

I do understand that some things can be lost in mergers and takeovers, but Audi was four companies, and Mercedes-Benz was two (I think). My point is that merging companies doesn't always result in a massive loss of quality for both companies involved. Takeovers have saved countless brand-names from obscurity.

Lane from s.c. · 23 May 2007, 01:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by President

Are you saying a Toyota is better than a German-engineered Rolls-Royce just because they're owned by BMW?

I`m not saying they are better, because I drive a bmw and also ride a bmw 2005 boxer cup 1100S one of 300 in the US that I just dropped of at bmw/ducati in charlotte n.c. this morning for its second waranty issue, blown transmission seal. And I just put a $2000 steering gear box in bmw car. But If had to drive from s.c to like alaska I would like a toyota. Oh yea my S80 volvo(work car) broke down a few months ago, ETM fly by wire throttle control sys. failed.
But other than all that everything is great.

Lane

GrandDaddy · 23 May 2007, 01:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lane from s.c.

Toyota is great at making cars and money.(I would not drive one though) RR is not a impressive car. And yes I have riding and driven them, including their brother Bently. I don`t know why anyone would want one unless maybe you are trying to impress someone. Cars and watches are prolly not a good comparison. But if anyone wants to re-read my post I used the word OPINION which means a judgment,impression and not based on absolute certainty. Over and out. Everyone have a great day and I`m sure everyone Is right.

Lane

I'm sure a person who owns his own companys is right too.

GrandDaddy · 23 May 2007, 01:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lane from s.c.

I`m not saying they are better, because I drive a bmw and also ride a bmw 2005 boxer cup 1100S one of 300 in the US that I just dropped of at bmw/ducati in charlotte n.c. this morning for its second waranty issue, blown transmission seal. And I just put a $2000 steering gear box in bmw car. But If had to drive from s.c to like alaska I would like a toyota. Oh yea my S80 volvo(work car) broke down a few months ago, ETM fly by wire throttle control sys. failed.
But other than all that everything is great.

Lane

You seem to have back lucks with foreign cars. I've had ZERO problem with my M3 ever since I bought it (new). So how's your FORD pick me up truck?

Lane from s.c. · 23 May 2007, 01:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by President

I do understand that some things can be lost in mergers and takeovers, but Audi was four companies, and Mercedes-Benz was two (I think). My point is that merging companies doesn't always result in a massive loss of quality for both companies involved. Takeovers have saved countless brand-names from obscurity.

I agree with your points here. I guess the whole rolex thing being bought by some else kinda of pee`ed me off. I guess on the good side where M & A works really well for me is KKR a big buy out group bought Katy Industries a couple of years ago and that has helped me alot as katy is one of my competitors. My business is booming in that division. :-)
But you are right it has saved some companys for sure.

Regards,
Lane

Lane from s.c. · 23 May 2007, 01:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GrandDaddy

You seem to have back lucks with foreign cars. I've had ZERO problem with my M3 ever since I bought it (new). So how's your FORD pick me up truck?

No pick ups for me. The M3 is a fun car. I have a 850i looks faster than it really is ( V12 eng. but just 300 hp) My neighbor had a m5 for a while (scary fast) and he just bought a audi S4 or somethng like that, 430 hp. and 4 wheel drive. also very fast.

Lane

SPACE-DWELLER · 23 May 2007, 02:20 AM

Please stop talking about CARS!

This is the Rolexforums

President · 23 May 2007, 02:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacedweller

Please stop talking about CARS!

This is the Rolexforums

We talk about sheep here, why not cars?

SPACE-DWELLER · 23 May 2007, 02:32 AM

Edensknight · 24 May 2007, 09:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lol-x

I don't see how any company can acquire Rolex if it is a charitable trust which operates a watch company that runs very successfully.
Now if Rolex was on the stock market with issued shares it might be a different matter.

I agree!

Thurnau · 24 May 2007, 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by President

Are you saying a Toyota is better than a German-engineered Rolls-Royce just because they're owned by BMW?

It always depends on the details.
If your requirements where: afford ability, reliability, readily available parts and service, gas economy, resale value, and practicality then yup toyota is a better car(without owning a Rolls). I thought VW owned Bentley/Rolls car division now lol.

But for bling factor the rolls with a leopard daytona won't go unnoticed

mikey · 24 May 2007, 01:57 PM

Well, if anyone remebers that Ford purchased Jaguar and yes the quality of the 1988 Jaguar was terrible under Fords control espcially the smaller jaguar models that showed a close resemblance to the 1996 Ford Taurus!

vdave · 24 May 2007, 03:55 PM

A majority of Rolex shares are owned by the Rolex foundation whose proceeds go to charity -- not sure if Swatch can buy these shares. Swatch may be able to buy about 20% of shares owned by independent investors.

President · 24 May 2007, 06:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikey

Well, if anyone remebers that Ford purchased Jaguar and yes the quality of the 1988 Jaguar was terrible under Fords control espcially the smaller jaguar models that showed a close resemblance to the 1996 Ford Taurus!

Jaguar is still under Ford's control, the brand may have died if it wasn't for them and their cash.

BondandBigM · 24 May 2007, 07:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vdave

A majority of Rolex shares are owned by the Rolex foundation whose proceeds go to charity -- not sure if Swatch can buy these shares. Swatch may be able to buy about 20% of shares owned by independent investors.

In this day and age of Globalisation everything is for sale, all it comes down to is how much is paid, I think you Americans call it "Capitolism"

I doubt very much these days if it matters how a company is set up. I suspect that the reason a lot of these companies that are or were set up as trusts,charities or whatever have been done so purely for tax reasons.

leopardprey · 24 May 2007, 07:44 PM

Whoever started this thread was a freakin madman!

President · 24 May 2007, 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leopardprey

Whoever started this thread was a freakin madman!

OL

Andad · 24 May 2007, 08:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leopardprey

Whoever started this thread was a freakin madman!

BoBo

astcell · 27 May 2007, 08:53 PM

Hahaha great joke. I expected something like this out of President!

President · 27 May 2007, 10:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by astcell

Hahaha great joke. I expected something like this out of President!

Don't insult him!

Arturo · 28 May 2007, 02:17 AM

Being owned by a bigger company would NOT be in the interest of Rolex fans. Rolex owns its own foundries to maintain the consistency in the quality of its gold and metals. Rolex is a non profit company. That does not mean that it does not make a profit, but that it has a specific charter of what to do WITH its profits. I have no problem paying MRSP on a Rolex if necessary given the things it does in the world. But, the very mystery and power of this company comes from having this kind of charter. I have posted on this in the past, and will try to find that post again.

Prince · 28 May 2007, 02:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by President

I do understand that some things can be lost in mergers and takeovers, but Audi was four companies, and Mercedes-Benz was two (I think). My point is that merging companies doesn't always result in a massive loss of quality for both companies involved. Takeovers have saved countless brand-names from obscurity.

That is one of the most lucid and coherent statements that you've ever made, Prezzie. Issuing the TRF Award for Outstanding Coherence to you was not in vain after all!

Goodwatch · 28 May 2007, 03:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prince

That is one of the most lucid and coherent statements that you've ever made, Prezzie. Issuing the TRF Award for Outstanding Coherence to you was not in vain after all!

Pffffffffssssttttt! (sound of Frans spitting out his coffee in disbelief)

Is that really you Allan???????

President · 28 May 2007, 03:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prince

That is one of the most lucid and coherent statements that you've ever made, Prezzie. Issuing the TRF Award for Outstanding Coherence to you was not in vain after all!

Who are you and what have you done with the old dude?

Arturo · 28 May 2007, 03:06 AM

Of course there are times when a weak brand needs a take over. But that is not Rolex which, from an intellectual property (just ask Rockrolex) probably has the most powerful brand power from a secondary meaning point of view in the world. No wonder Rolex is so vicious to fake makers....they protect that powerful brand like a lioness with its cubs as it should. No, this is not Audi in a herd of competing brands. This is Rolex, is not in any financial trouble.

23 May 2007, 02:20 AM	#72
SPACE-DWELLER "TRF" Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Real Name: Bo Location: Denmark Watch: Rolex, of course! Posts: 22,436	Please stop talking about CARS! This is the Rolexforums __________________ With kind regards, Bo LocTite 221: The Taming Of The Screw...

23 May 2007, 02:32 AM	#74
SPACE-DWELLER "TRF" Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Real Name: Bo Location: Denmark Watch: Rolex, of course! Posts: 22,436	__________________ With kind regards, Bo LocTite 221: The Taming Of The Screw...

23 May 2007, 12:48 AM	#61
watchnut "TRF" Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Real Name: David Location: SW Fla Watch: SS Daytona & TT DJ Posts: 1,430	Wilsdorf is dead?!

23 May 2007, 12:55 AM	#62
Lane from s.c. Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Real Name: Lane H. Location: fort mill, s.c. Watch: gmt, new in 1985 Posts: 190	Toyota is a stand alone company and they are the best and the most sound of any car company. I believe rolex is and would be a stronger company as a stand alone instead of a bunch of numb nuts coming in and firing half the brains because some other brand has some brains in their engn. dept. And yes, I no this a moot point as rolex is not for sale nor will they be. I`m not against all M&A but I have had my share with this maddness thats why I own my own companys. Regards, Lane

23 May 2007, 01:22 AM	#65
Lane from s.c. Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Real Name: Lane H. Location: fort mill, s.c. Watch: gmt, new in 1985 Posts: 190	Toyota is great at making cars and money.(I would not drive one though) RR is not a impressive car. And yes I have riding and driven them, including their brother Bently. I don`t know why anyone would want one unless maybe you are trying to impress someone. Cars and watches are prolly not a good comparison. But if anyone wants to re-read my post I used the word OPINION which means a judgment,impression and not based on absolute certainty. Over and out. Everyone have a great day and I`m sure everyone Is right. Lane

24 May 2007, 01:57 PM	#77
mikey "TRF" Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: USA Watch: Oysterdate 6694 Posts: 2,713	Well, if anyone remebers that Ford purchased Jaguar and yes the quality of the 1988 Jaguar was terrible under Fords control espcially the smaller jaguar models that showed a close resemblance to the 1996 Ford Taurus!

24 May 2007, 03:55 PM	#78
vdave Member Join Date: Feb 2007 Real Name: Dave Location: Texas Watch: Oyster DT & GMT II Posts: 75	A majority of Rolex shares are owned by the Rolex foundation whose proceeds go to charity -- not sure if Swatch can buy these shares. Swatch may be able to buy about 20% of shares owned by independent investors.

24 May 2007, 07:44 PM	#81
leopardprey Banned Join Date: Nov 2006 Real Name: Chad Location: Around the world Watch: Panerai 233 Posts: 4,204	Whoever started this thread was a freakin madman!

27 May 2007, 08:53 PM	#84
astcell "TRF" Member Join Date: Aug 2006 Real Name: Robert Location: Angelus Oaks, CA Watch: 116713 Posts: 6,828	Hahaha great joke. I expected something like this out of President!

28 May 2007, 02:17 AM	#86
Arturo "TRF" Member Join Date: May 2005 Real Name: Arturo Location: Pacific Northwest Watch: Black GMT ll Posts: 1,271	Being owned by a bigger company would NOT be in the interest of Rolex fans. Rolex owns its own foundries to maintain the consistency in the quality of its gold and metals. Rolex is a non profit company. That does not mean that it does not make a profit, but that it has a specific charter of what to do WITH its profits. I have no problem paying MRSP on a Rolex if necessary given the things it does in the world. But, the very mystery and power of this company comes from having this kind of charter. I have posted on this in the past, and will try to find that post again.

28 May 2007, 03:06 AM	#90
Arturo "TRF" Member Join Date: May 2005 Real Name: Arturo Location: Pacific Northwest Watch: Black GMT ll Posts: 1,271	Of course there are times when a weak brand needs a take over. But that is not Rolex which, from an intellectual property (just ask Rockrolex) probably has the most powerful brand power from a secondary meaning point of view in the world. No wonder Rolex is so vicious to fake makers....they protect that powerful brand like a lioness with its cubs as it should. No, this is not Audi in a herd of competing brands. This is Rolex, is not in any financial trouble.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)