Tuesday, May 26, 2009

BOMBSHELL: DEALER'S LAWYER WHO DEPOSED CHRYSLER EXEC: DECISION TO CLOSE DEALERS WAS BY PRESIDENT'S TASK FORCE, NOT BY CHRYSLER

REUTERS:
A lawyer for Chrysler dealers facing closure as part of the automaker's bankruptcy reorganization said on Tuesday he believes Chrysler executives do not support a plan to eliminate a quarter of its retail outlets.

Lawyer Leonard Bellavia, of Bellavia Gentile & Associates, who represents some of the terminated dealers, said he deposed Chrysler President Jim Press on Tuesday and came away with the impression that Press did not support the plan.

"It became clear to us that Chrysler does not see the wisdom of terminating 25 percent of its dealers," Bellavia said. "It really wasn't Chrysler's decision. They are under enormous pressure from the President's automotive task force."
THE PRESIDENT'S TASK FORCE LED BY POLITICAL APPOINTEE AND MONEYBAGS RATNER.

IF THIS IS TRUE, THEN IT MEANS THAT CLOSING THESE DEALERSHIPS WAS A POLITICAL DECISION, NOT A COMMERICAL ONE.

OF SO, THEN IT'S OUTRAGEOUS - AND EVERY BIT AS BAD AS MUGABE SEIZING FARMS IN ZIMBABWE OR CASTRO SEIZING BUSNESSES IN CUBA.

OR STALIN. OR KRISTALLNACHT.

18 comments:

  1. Yes, the the same (or worse) will happen with GM. Isn't it bad enough that they were FORCED into bankruptcy when they didn't want it? Now, the gov will force them to build cars no one wants, and then we'll all be shocked when the companies go under for good.

    Personally, I've been waiting for a Camaro like they just built since 1968 (the model I really liked best), and now I'm afraid it will be killed to force mini electric cars on everyone.

    What is the deal with our government taking over businesses and making them do these bizarre things?

    ReplyDelete
  2. must be nice to have a blog where you can lie and repeat it often without any proof. Sort of a Joseph Goebbels type journal.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "must be nice to have a blog where you can lie and repeat it often without any proof. Sort of a Joseph Goebbels type journal." -Elaygee-

    The facts are in the article from Reuters. Maybe if you took the time to click the link and actually read the article will you realize that the author's opinion is based on facts. Of course, the leftist method of argumention is to label a contrary opinion as racist, radical or just plain deception without ever looking at the blatant facts that stare every reasonably objection person in the face. You do a disservice to yourself by posting such stupidities.

    ReplyDelete
  4. El-gay-lee,
    You say he is lying. If you know he's lying, why don't you tell us the truth, and back it up with links to articles in reputable news sources, just as Reliapundit has done here ...

    YOU DUMBFUCK.

    ReplyDelete
  5. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  6. From the link:

    --A spokeswoman for Chrysler said the decision to cut a
    quarter of the dealers was "not coming from the task force."
    "Our position is that the market can't support the number of
    dealers that are out there," said spokeswoman Carrie McElwee.
    "This has been our plan for more than 10 years to combine
    Chrysler, Dodge and Jeep under one roof."

    So Chrysler's spokeswoman is saying something completely different than what one dealer's lawyer claims is an "impression" he got from deposing a Chrysler exec.

    Hmmmm....statement versus impression...hmmmm.

    ReplyDelete
  7. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Dealer consolidation has been a conversation piece in the manufacturing and supply chain communities for a long time now. Current dealer covenants reauire the automakers to supply dealers with dozens of cars on consignment in August. The automakers might not see money for those cars until the next summer. So: they have to take out loans to meet their cashflow needs, they have to pay interest on the loans, and they have to sponsor massive summer blowout sales just to recoup the cost of vehicles no one wanted to buy, but dealer covenants forced them to make. If they had their druthers, automakers would try to change their distribution model to match the one GE adopted for appliances -- each dealer has a few demo models for test drives, you place an order for the car you want, and it's delivered to your home a few days later. The public's not ready for that . . . but dealer closings are a step in the right direction.

    It's very possible that the Obama administration played politics in choosing which dealers to close. But the IDEA of dealer closings came from the industry. There's no evil conspiracy here.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Unfortunately, there are many, many more people hurt by this than just the dealers which is very wrong:

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124286497706641485.html

    ReplyDelete
  10. Jeffrey,
    Do you have a link for that information. This was the question I've been asking myself about the story.

    it seems to me, however, you provided a solution to the problem, which you then immediately rejected.

    You said: " If they had their druthers, automakers would try to change their distribution model to match the one GE adopted for appliances -- each dealer has a few demo models for test drives, you place an order for the car you want, and it's delivered to your home a few days later."

    Why do you, then, immediately reject that solution? It seems to me such a solution would allow these dealerships to stay in business and keep employing people. If they are wanting to stay in business that means they are making money. To pull the rug out from underneath them is bad for the economy.

    For the government to pull the rug out from underneath a profitable business is SOCIALISM, or should I say, Stalinism.

    If the auto manufacturers want to change the deal they have with the dealerships, renegotiating would make a whole lot more sense, right?

    ReplyDelete
  11. It's very possible that the Obama administration played politics in choosing which dealers to close. But the IDEA of dealer closings came from the industry. There's no evil conspiracy here. - JEFFREY

    IF THE DEALERS WERE SELECTED BY OBAMA THEN THERE'S A VERY EVIL CONSPRIACY.

    ONE WHICH USED TAXPAYER MONEY TO GIVE CHRYSLER AND BM TO THE UNIONS WHICH BACK THE DEM PARTY.

    ESSENTIALLY, OABAM SEIZED TO CARMAKERS AND GAVE THEM AS A GIFT TO HIS MINIONS.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Jeffrey, your premise is incorrect. My husband has been in this business for 40 years. In the US, car dealers pay for all inventory within hours of delivery and bear all financial exposure including interest or "flooring" on loans from their local bankers to cover the cost. The manufacturer has been paid for the cars, and may seasonally offer $$ incentives to clear old inventory to encourage the dealer to purchase new inventory. You may be familiar with the European model where the manufacturer owns the inventory and the dealers have no rights or franchise law protection. This overreaching, regardless of who "wanted" it, Chrysler or the White House or the "task force" violates franchise laws and cheats the suddenly severed dealers, who now must dump their inventory below their cost to their competitors. You must understand this to understand the devastating financial consequences to these dealers. Chrysler will not buy their cars back.
    It should interest those with a desire get the facts to learn the severely limited auto industry knowledge of this task force and Mr. Ratner's wife's political connections.

    ReplyDelete
  13. One thing for sure, we need to know for sure who really decided on which dealerships would be closed. Knowing that would clear the muddy waters at least and let us know just how outraged we need to be.

    ReplyDelete
  14. RRR - SO RIGHT!

    BTW: HEDGE FUNDS ARE MOSTLY INVESTING FOR PENSIONS IN MANY CASES; IOW: THEY ARE "YOU AND ME AND OUR GRANDPARENT/PARENTS" AND NOT SOME EVIL WALLSTREETER.

    ReplyDelete
  15. What you've come up with isn't true. The plan to close Chrysler dealerships, called Project Genesis, goes back at least as far as February, 2008. That's well before Obama took office and had influence over company decisions. Here's the link that proves this company generated plan goes back to February 2008:

    http://www.carseek.com/news/february2008/Chrysler-announces-Project-Genesis/

    The only evidence on your side is an attorney for the closed dealerships (biased and probably lying) whose claim was denied by Chrysler and was based on nothing but an "impression" he said he got while deposing a Chrysler executive.

    The preponderence of evidence here says it was and remained Chrysler's plan to close dealerships, not Obama's.

    ReplyDelete
  16. If Obama's people knew the percentage of Republicans among the dealerships was high, they would probably not bother to interfere with the process, but I bet they got their fingerprints all over influencing who did not get dropped.

    ReplyDelete