| Author | Message | ||
     Rainman |
I've read and heard about HD executives being jealous and bitter and hateful and spiteful, but I really don't understand WHY. Is it just because Buell was successful in so many small ways? Was it personalities? Would a company so large really let such pettiness get in the way of potential profits and business? It just doesn't make sense. | ||
| Swampy |
Many people will hate you when you are happy or successful. There is almost a direct correlation between your personal happiness and people being angry with you. When you are successful, many people will become resentful and sabotage your successes. It is just human nature for angry unhappy people to act like that. You have read where that many of the uppermanagement people at Harley-Davidson do not ride motorcycles....now just think how angry and unhappy you would be if you didn't ride a motorcycle.... | ||
| Rpm4x4 |
I have a hard time understanding this also. Isnt Buells success essentially Harleys Success.  They should be proud. | ||
| Froggy |
I also find it hard to believe, but Swampy is correct. I see it all the time at work, jealousy over someones promotion or similar upgrade in life. I am sure Erik and his team of 200 pissed off his share of people with how successful he has been in the last few years. | ||
| Elvis |
Over the past 5 years, Buell grew 56% while Harley grew 9%. I can't get inside the heads of the Harley board, but Buell clearly wasn't cut because of poor performance. | ||
| Rainman |
I must be odd. In my business, if the Internet web site is expanding 56 percent and the print edition of the paper ONLY growing at 9 percent, I sure as hell am not going to cut the Internet. I'm going to see what they're doing that I can add to my product and increase both products. Especially if the Internet site is not a serious and major financial drain. What is wrong with this country? | ||
| Ourdee |
hmmm, ...... , thinking here. Who had something personal against Buell? I'm way off on a tangent. But it is the only explanation that I've been able to accept. Next product beyond 80% finished and years in development. Preceding product beyond being competitive. Is Buell only shut down till MV sells? Just makes me madder than a wet hen. Thank you all, rant off. | ||
| Jaimec |
I'm thinking that Buell was a constant reminder to Harley Davidson on how BADLY they understand the sport bike market. Remember the marketing disaster of the XLCR? It's a collector's item NOW, but back when it was first introduced it was a complete flop. All you need to do is read Dave & Court's book when they get to the VR1000 debacle of AMA Superbike to know what happened when they ignored Erik's advice on how the bike SHOULD'VE been designed to see once again how Harley failed to understand basic engineering principles. Remember the Revolution motor started out as a Buell project, but then Harley got a hold of it, made all kinds of changes to the original design to make it "appropriate" for a heavy power cruiser. Once they were done, Erik rejected the final outcome and the bike they DID build around it gathers dust on the salesroom floor. Some people just don't like being reminded of just how LAME they are. Having Erik Buell and his success around must've been an itch they couldn't scratch until the new Board took over. | ||
| Richsm2 |
I worked for a BIG aerospace co. in a technical position( or so I thought upon hire) but found that the general consensus was ,due to the lack of the said background ,for all they could care.they were making refrigerators. no clue just a busy stream of activity-mostly at the keyboard. my third level manager sent out a young man for three months to find out what we did,yet micro managed us down to every keystroke. At my previous employer the third level was the president,this co.nolonger exists. By my typing you can see why I no longer work there. | ||
| Rainman |
I guess I don't understand. To me, if you own a sportbike company and it becomes successful, YOU are a success. If you have an expert in something, you consult him and find ways to make design/function either meet or come to a decent compromise. It ain't freakin' rocket science. If all of this is over bruised egos and bad attitudes and I was the boss, the guillotine would need a serious clean-and-oil at the end of the day. | ||
| Hex |
"...A wholly owned subsidiary..." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidiary A subsidiary, in business matters, is an entity that is controlled by a separate entity. The controlled entity is called a company, corporation, or limited liability company and in some cases can be a government or state-owned enterprise, and the controlling entity is called its parent (or the parent company). The reason for this distinction is that a lone company cannot be a subsidiary of any organization; only an entity representing a legal fiction as a separate entity can be a subsidiary. Contrary to popular belief, a parent company does not have to be the larger or "more powerful" entity; it is possible for the parent company to be smaller than a subsidiary, or the parent may be larger than some or all of its subsidiaries (if it has more than one). The parent and the subsidiary do not necessarily have to operate in the same locations, or operate the same businesses, but it is also possible that they could conceivably be competitors in the marketplace. (Hewlett Packard is the parent company of Compaq but both compete against each other in the sale of desktop computers.) Also, because a parent company and a subsidiary are separate entities, it is entirely possible for one of them to be involved in legal proceedings, bankruptcy, tax delinquency, indictment and/or under investigation, while the other is not. The most common way that control of a subsidiary is achieved is through the ownership of shares in the subsidiary by the parent. These shares give the parent the necessary votes to determine the composition of the board of the subsidiary and so exercise control. This gives rise to the common presumption that 50% plus one share is enough to create a subsidiary. There are, however, other ways that control can come about and the exact rules both as to what control is needed and how it is achieved can be complex (see below). A subsidiary may itself have subsidiaries, and these, in turn, may have subsidiaries of their own. A parent and all its subsidiaries together are called a group, although this term can also apply to cooperating companies and their subsidiaries with varying degrees of shared ownership. Subsidiaries are separate, distinct legal entities for the purposes of taxation and regulation. For this reason, they differ from divisions, which are businesses fully integrated within the main company, and not legally or otherwise distinct from it. Subsidiaries are a common feature of business life and most if not all major businesses organize their operations in this way. Examples include holding companies such as Berkshire Hathaway as in this listing of its subsidiaries, Time Warner, or Citigroup as well as more focused companies such as IBM, or Xerox Corporation. These, and others, organize their businesses into national or functional subsidiaries, sometimes with multiple levels of subsidiaries. An operating subsidiary is a business term frequently used within the United States railroad industry. In the case of a railroad, it refers to a company that is a subsidiary but operates with its own identity, locomotives and rolling stock. In contrast, a non-operating subsidiary would exist on paper only (i.e. stocks, bonds, articles of incorporation) and would use the identity and rolling stock of the parent company. | ||
| Hex |
The closing of Buell just doesn't make sense. Even in this definition above, there are many examples of competing subsidiaries. Many viable business options have been squelched. To me, Buell was a model example of corporation between large and small interests. After this extremely harsh reality, I can't find my business perusing cooperation with other possibly larger businesses. They'll just eat me up and spit me out, just like HD did to 200 Americans last month. HD is being led by money-bullies not motorcyclists. Time for the Pegasus to fly, methinks. | ||
| Midknyte |
I must be odd. In my business, if the Internet web site is expanding 56 percent and the print edition of the paper ONLY growing at 9 percent, I sure as hell am not going to cut the Internet. I'm going to see what they're doing that I can add to my product and increase both products. Tell this to, the Record industry the Movie industry TV and Radio Newspaper publishers Book publishers ... | ||
| Midknyte |
I'm thinking that Buell was a constant reminder to Harley Davidson on how BADLY they understand the sport bike market. HD doesn't F*cking have to understand the sport bike market. All they _have_ to do is step out of the way! | ||
| Court |
>>>>HD doesn't F*cking have to understand the sport bike market. All they _have_ to do is step out of the way! Agreed | ||
| Ratbuell |
>>>>HD doesn't F*cking have to understand the sport bike market. All they _have_ to do is step out of the way! Agreed But they won't. They are convinced that a chromecruiser is the ONLY viable type of motorcycle, and that they *will* prove that to everyone on the planet whether they want to learn it or not. | ||
| Steveford |
A few years ago I met a fellow who was a retired HD mover and shaker. His comment was that Erik was "very smart, maybe too smart for his own good". I don't believe for a moment that this was simply a dollars and cents decision. | ||
| Reepicheep |
1) High passion running into big ego's is a perfect recipe for ill will. 2) A new CEO is a great recipe for an exercise in vindictiveness, and ass covering. 3) When a new CEO sees that he's been made a fool of, he will either let it go and hope nobody notices so he can serve out enough time on the contract so he can retire as a rich failure, or go kick some &^%^&*%^ asses and chop off some ^&^%%$#$#% heads. We are, AFAIK, at step 2. I'm eagerly awaiting step 3, and hoping Wandell isn't a coward. | ||
| Rainman |
Of course, Midnyte, you're right. Being in the newspaper business, I see really stupid decisions being made all the time. I still don't understand it. I thought those folks with all the initials behind their names -- ph.D, J.D., MBA, -- were smarter than me. Hey H-D, if you put non-bikers into management and it doesn't work, put a nonmanagement biker into the business and let's see what happens. I'll give it a shot for half of what you're paying the other idjits. | ||
| Rainman |
PS: My first effort will be to create a Harley 500cc single with Surlyn body work modeled after an XR750 and market it as an urban assault bike you can ride in the city, park in tight spaces and get it knocked over in grocery store parking lots by idiots in Camrys without destroying the bodywork, all the while your $20,000 Fat Boy sits safe and sound for the weekend. We'll call it the Thumpster. | ||
| Hex |
So, Windell is a fool who made a snap decision based on lies? | ||
| Elvis |
Honestly, I can understand why they did what they did. If I made and sold shoes as my primary business, but 3% of my business was watches, and I was having trouble selling shoes, but watches were doing well, I still might consider getting rid of the watches. My salesmen know how to sell shoes, my repair people know how to fix shoes, my marketing people know how to market shoes, my manufacturing people know how to make shoes. No matter how well the watch business is doing, it's not what my people know how to do, so I should consider getting rid of it to focus on doing what my people know and understand. Of course, if I could get something for it, I'd sell the watch business to someone else. The problem with my analogy is that the company to whom I sell the watch business isn't likely to eat into my shoe business in the future. I'm sure that Harley believes that a strong Buell could eat into their future business . . . and maybe they could. While we recognize they are very different products Harley doesn't sell based on the performance of their bikes, they sell based on fashion. What if Buells became the trendy, fashionable bikes? Harley has the enviable position of being the only serious US motorcycle manufacturer and, if it's within their power, they're going to guard that position jealously (for those who know more about these things, is there any kind of anti-trust or anti-monopoly angle we could use on this?) I don't want to justify the actions of the board, but I think it's important we understand what motivates them if we want to fight them. Also it's important to keep in mind that there are many different voices and opinions on the board. I'm laying out the logical argument to do away with Buell. Board members may be motivated by petty, personal reasons, but they could use my above argument to justify their actions. The very tough battle we have is that Buell is worth very little to Harley but Buell could be a long term threat to them. The cash Harley would get for Buell doesn't justify the creation of a competitor. So how do we battle that? Unfortunately it's very tough. The straw I keep grasping at is that if we can be vocal enough and let a broad enough audience recognize the unjustness of what Harley is doing, we could begin to tarnish their image. If people can really see that Harley's actions may be legal, but they are harmful to the motorcycle industry of this country . . . if we can illustrate that Harley doesn't care about the US and jobs and freedom and individuality, the image they have carefully crafted could lose some of its luster. They also paint themselves as a daring, adventurous brand, and if we can make them appear afraid of little Buell, it could have some impact. Loss of even a small percentage of sales due to a public distaste for the brand could have a greater impact on their income than Buell in the hands of Erik Buell. It may seem like a long-shot, but keep in mind Harley's brand image, as empty as it may seem to us, is their most valuable asset. Even minor damage to that image will be costly to them. If we keep working to get the truth out - the truth that Harley is acting selfishly and cowardly and their selfishness is robbing the public of jobs, an American Sport-bike, interntational prestige of making a high-performance product, the unique talents of Erik Buell etc. - bit by bit, piece by piece, we may be able to nibble away until they are forced to respond. (Message edited by elvis on November 18, 2009) | ||
| Jaimec |
I see no evidence to the contrary, Hex. | ||
| Alii1959 |
If you really wanted to be smart, if you are HD, then maybe you could be proactive. Sell Buell to Eric. Continue to sell engines to him, those are $$ aren't they? Then, as HD seems confident that people will do, when people want to upgrade to a traditional Harley with the engine they already are familiar with....tada! But, I guess that would take a great deal of fortitude. If you really are that confident, why not take that chance? | ||
| Reepicheep |
Not necessarily a fool. You come on as CEO, and you have to start somewhere, so you trust some lieutenants, especially ones that were there a long time. On the other hand, the lieutenants got the company where it is today, and if that was a good place, you wouldn't have replaced your predecessor.  I think the rest is accurate though. It was a snap decision based on lies. And Wandell clearly made a mistake. We find out shortly if he is a fool. Taking losses for "closing Buell" this tax year, then "magically" finding a buyer next tax year, might make some good sense. Buell was pretty much going to be shut down for the rest of this year anyway. | ||
| Mbc |
Ah,its all too familiar,can't believe I didn't see it sooner,just refused to accept the fact that this kind of ignorance exist at this level.In early 90's,I went to work for a well established const. co.(50+ yrs.)The field of work I was/am in had always subbed out so their knowledge base was limited.When I witnessed improper methods employed,I would voice my opinion.The "leaders" did not see this as an asset but a slap in the face,here I was a field worker telling them how to do the work(run "their" business).As time progressed it became clear that there were those who did what ever it took to discount our abilities and existence,we adopted the saying"They can't stop us,they can slow us down,but they can't stop us".In their infinite wisdom,they progressed them selves out of business,this Co. no longer exist.There is no room for this kind of ignorance in business,government,America.These restraints need to be severed in order to continue.Let HD go,its sad to say but its not the end of Buell that lay in the days to come.When the impossible presents itself,return to square 1 to find how simple the impossible is.I look forward to working with those who build Buell Motorcycles. NEVER give-up ! , MBC | ||
| Doylejj |
I'm guessing the new CEO came to see Buell as a distraction from the brand focus he is espousing as the key to HD's future. The numbers, as has been pointed out repeatedly, were largely rounding errors for HD, except they will probably benefit in future years from the loss for closing Buell this year. I'm guessing the Board chose to defer to the new CEO, especially with all the other top HD executives urging the decision. If Eric Buell stays with Harley, it will be because Harley still has a thought of making sport bikes (or STs) in the future, under the HD brand. The biggest roadblock to this happening is HD's VRod experience. | ||
| Boltrider |
All that creative energy bottled up under pressure. The thing is that bottle won't hold forever. It might even blow up in Harley's face. | ||
| Toona |
Elvis, I like your analogy, but I think it's use of shoes and watches is a little too far apart. Maybe if you would replace HD with "loafers" (yes, I choose that style of shoe on purpose) and Buell was a running shoe, then your analogy might work better. | ||
| Malott442 |
I want to say something, but I'm trying to be civilized to the Fags. |
