Re: 8.75 vs 2.1

Posted by 58L8134 On 2014/11/16 10:03:33

Hi

".....that the Packard board, and Nance in particular, were drowning in their own hubris."

Were truer words ever spoken! The decision to outsource body-making to Briggs in 1940-41 by Macauley, Gilman, Christopher et al seemed cost-affective and, because of pressing war work, expedient. Ultimately, it became a major cause for their downfall.

No one can blame Chrysler for trying to get all they could from the deal. After all, they could only sell that plant once. Even at $8.75M, Packard still couldn't swing it, leased Connor for five years which was a stopgap but that was all the plant was good for. Anything other than a modern body/assembly facility attached directly to Utica was going to be a stopgap. That is, if they intended to pursue the complete one-story plant concept to fruition.

There were a number of timing mismatches when it came to the advantages that could have been wrought. Packard needed their body plant but Hudson wasn't quite done using it. By the time AMC could lease it, Packard was locked into Connor. We assume the Hudson body plant might have worked out better than Connor though anecdotal evidence suggests it might not have been that much better a situation.

Bad blood between Nance and Romney right from the get-go scuttled whatever beneficial reciprocity operations might have strengthened both companies. As John Harley notes, company documents reveal the degree to which each side poisoned the well of any worthwhile cooperation possible.

Steve