Rocna Anchors acquired by Canada Metal Pacific

[GrantKing]

copy

That's outrageous! Do you have a copy of that letter? It's dynamite!

Yes Hoolie of course I have a copy of that letter, I would not have stated the contents of it without having evidential proof of it, just the same as every other posting I make, they are all backed with hard evidence.

That is why NONE of them have ever been disputed by Bambury.

Dynamite??? you have seen nothing yet.

 

[RichardS]

Have any of you worked for largish companies, where it takes weeks or months to gather information, decide on a plan of action. CMP have only just taken on the Rocna anchor, and are probably uncovering lots of information, and deciding a plan of action. It won't surprise me if it takes a few more months before you get concrete details,and the constant howls of outrage on here on a daily basis aren't going to speed that up.

I actually don't think that is the case any longer Brendan. I believe that the extent of the problem is known but the costs to chandlers/distributors of replacing all those anchors would be horrendous and would eventually fall back onto Holdfast which is why that Company has been declared bankrupt.

Some years ago I bought a very expensive convertible sports car. After a few years I had a problem with the electric roof not closing first time in cool weather. Before taking it back to the dealer I checked on the internet and found although the workshop manual and techincal information bulletins for the car are not published in Europe, they were available in the US under the Freedom of Information laws. I checked the US Technical Bulletins and found that all dealers had been advised that the first 3 years production had been filled with an incorrect hydraulic fluid which was not suitable low temperature operation, low temperature being a typical British summer! The bulletin said that if a customer complained dealers should only agree to top-up the fluid tank with the correct fluid. However, if the customer had checked the tank (which was hidden behind a panel) and knew that low fluid was not the problem, the dealer should reluctantly agree to drain and refill the tank with the correct fluid, an expensive job!

I reckon that most companies have secrets that would be prohibitively expensive to put right if the issue became public so they operate on the basis that the buyers who do some research and then complain will get the problem corrected. And, before you think "your roof was not a safety issue", think Toyota!

Richard

 

[bigwow]

Who is the starter of all these story if not CMP and Rocna 1?

Laura was the OP press the red triangle, get her sin binned.

 

[GrantKing]

Laura was the OP press the red triangle, get her sin binned.

Is that where they give out the medals?

 

[maxi77]

at the originators of the outrage maybe, but the current company are due some time and space to get things in order.

In the real world you either hit the ground running or fall flat on your face. When you carry out a product launch as CMP have done you have all the answers at your finger tips from the first minute. After all CMP have the full time support of the creators of the need for a relaunch, all the information should be there.

I would have expected a launch pack being sent to all distributors with details of what CMP will do to support suspect product along with press releases to the trade press stating much the same. All we seem to have is R1 doing a one armed paper hanger impression where we are all apparently left with more questions than answers.

One wonders whether CMP have an escape clause in their contract, there usually is these days when taking over a company or product that is in trouble.

 

[GrantKing]

There is a regular undercurrent that forums are at fault for perpetuating stories. It seems to be forgotten if Holdast had not deceived with regards to RINA certification and had not 'accidentally' used 420 steel then this thread would not exist. Its not the fault of the forum this deception was developed - so who should be blamed and how should it be done.

Still not associated with an anchor maker etc etc

Deception?
Lets make a list then.

Bambury changes metals on moving production to China in 2008 and covers it up.

Subsequently in 2009 when the venice anchor appears and I instruct the distributor to return it to me Bambury steps in and ordes it destroyed and not sent back to me fo testing.

Subsequently the other 9 of the same size are replaced and these destroyed as well.

Subsequently the manufacturer in China discloses to me that 420 is being used and has been since day 1. Again covered up by Bambury.

Subsequently when a China model is tested here in NZ by metal test laboatories and reported to be made of low gade steel it is again covered up by Bambury and he orders all information to be suppressed.

Subsequently when Rina reject 420 as a suitable shank material I change the metal to 620 after huge disagreements with Bambury over the slight increase in cost however the change has to be phased in as all remaining 420 shanks are used up.

Subsequently the issuing of certificates or other statements from Rina is becoming problematic so drawing metal specs are changed to suit.

Subsequently certificates are still not forthcoming until I am sent to Shanghai and instructed to pay cash bribes to certain key individuals to have certificates and statements issued. Documented proof of which is currently before the courts.

Refute that.

 

[Sybarite]

I actually don't think that is the case any longer Brendan. I believe that the extent of the problem is known but the costs to chandlers/distributors of replacing all those anchors would be horrendous and would eventually fall back onto Holdfast which is why that Company has been declared bankrupt.

Some years ago I bought a very expensive convertible sports car. After a few years I had a problem with the electric roof not closing first time in cool weather. Before taking it back to the dealer I checked on the internet and found although the workshop manual and techincal information bulletins for the car are not published in Europe, they were available in the US under the Freedom of Information laws. I checked the US Technical Bulletins and found that all dealers had been advised that the first 3 years production had been filled with an incorrect hydraulic fluid which was not suitable low temperature operation, low temperature being a typical British summer! The bulletin said that if a customer complained dealers should only agree to top-up the fluid tank with the correct fluid. However, if the customer had checked the tank (which was hidden behind a panel) and knew that low fluid was not the problem, the dealer should reluctantly agree to drain and refill the tank with the correct fluid, an expensive job!

I reckon that most companies have secrets that would be prohibitively expensive to put right if the issue became public so they operate on the basis that the buyers who do some research and then complain will get the problem corrected. And, before you think "your roof was not a safety issue", think Toyota!

Richard

That reminds me of the Ford Pinto trial :

"Fuel tank controversy

Controversy followed the Pinto after 1977 allegations that the Pinto's structural design allowed its fuel tank filler neck to break off[8] and the fuel tank, in all too common occasions, to be punctured in a rear-end collision,[8] resulting in deadly fires from spilled fuel.

[edit] Allegations and lawsuitsCritics alleged that the vehicle's lack of reinforcing structure between the rear panel and the tank meant the tank would be pushed forward and punctured by the protruding bolts of the differential[16] — making the car less safe than its contemporaries.

According to a 1977 Mother Jones article, Ford allegedly was aware of the design flaw, refused to pay for a redesign, and decided it would be cheaper to pay off possible lawsuits for resulting deaths. The magazine obtained a cost-benefit analysis that it said Ford had used to compare the cost of an $11 repair against the monetary value of a human life—what became known as the Ford Pinto Memo.[14][17][18]

An example of a Pinto rear-end accident that led to a lawsuit was the 1972 accident that killed Lilly Gray and severely burned 13-year old Richard Grimshaw. The accident resulted in the court case Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co.,[19] in which the California Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District upheld compensatory damages of $2.5 million and punitive damages of $3.5 million against Ford, partially because Ford had been aware of the design defects before production but had decided against changing the design."

Wikipedia

 

[evm1024]

If only R1 were able to respond ....

Eagerly awaiting the results of the court case and the resulting disclosure of facts.

Regards, Ethan

 

[jordanbasset]

Deception?
Lets make a list then.

Bambury changes metals on moving production to China in 2008 and covers it up.

Subsequently in 2009 when the venice anchor appears and I instruct the distributor to return it to me Bambury steps in and ordes it destroyed and not sent back to me fo testing.

Subsequently the other 9 of the same size are replaced and these destroyed as well.

Subsequently the manufacturer in China discloses to me that 420 is being used and has been since day 1. Again covered up by Bambury.

Subsequently when a China model is tested here in NZ by metal test laboatories and reported to be made of low gade steel it is again covered up by Bambury and he orders all information to be suppressed.

Subsequently when Rina reject 420 as a suitable shank material I change the metal to 620 after huge disagreements with Bambury over the slight increase in cost however the change has to be phased in as all remaining 420 shanks are used up.

Subsequently the issuing of certificates or other statements from Rina is becoming problematic so drawing metal specs are changed to suit.

Subsequently certificates are still not forthcoming until I am sent to Shanghai and instructed to pay cash bribes to certain key individuals to have certificates and statements issued. Documented proof of which is currently before the courts.

Refute that.

Grant you have a lot of information on this subject and it is illuminating for us all. A poster has said above that we should give the new company time as it 'takes weeks to gather information'. As this has already been going on for some weeks now how often has CMP been in contact with you to gather this information as you appear a prime, if not the prime source.

 

[Djbangi]

jordanbasset

What an interesting question!

 

[GrantKing]

Grant you have a lot of information on this subject and it is illuminating for us all. A poster has said above that we should give the new company time as it 'takes weeks to gather information'. As this has already been going on for some weeks now how often has CMP been in contact with you to gather this information as you appear a prime, if not the prime source.

They have not been in contact at all.

 

[GrantKing]

jordanbasset

What an interesting question!

Yes it is and if they have any sense they start to sit up and listen instead of listening to the continued lies that their prime carryover employee spouts to them.

How can any reasonable company not take notice of information and proof coming from so many other scources over the last 6 months or so and not take notice and question the validity of what they were told by Bambury and Smith.

Its beyond reason and bordering on disbelief that ignorance can exist at such a level.

 

[youen]

For me CMP think we are only a few knowing the truth.And they think that in some months almost everybody will have forgotten and the business will continue as usual.

 

[Ex-SolentBoy]

Yes it is and if they have any sense they start to sit up and listen instead of listening to the continued lies that their prime carryover employee spouts to them.

How can any reasonable company not take notice of information and proof coming from so many other scources over the last 6 months or so and not take notice and question the validity of what they were told by Bambury and Smith.

Its beyond reason and bordering on disbelief that ignorance can exist at such a level.

Of course, the other possibility is that they are smarter than we think. I have been involved in many disposals and acquisitions, and sometimes it is hard to see the wood for the trees.

They may be fully aware of the problems but have still calculated it is a viable business for them. They keep some of the old employees only as long as they need to, so as to do a handover and stay on their side during any pending legal proceedings, and then ditch them.

All supposition on my part of course.

 

[Rigger Mortice]

Its beyond reason and bordering on disbelief that ignorance can exist at such a level.

When you want to bury bad news the best thing to do is to avoid finding it in the first place. It's the corporate equivalent of burying your head in the sand.

We've now ended up with the farce of a company having a spokesman who refuses to speak and, as he is only on contract until the end of the year, may well be never heard from again.

We've had promises of regular, accurate information. All we've had is a couple of memo's which have been full of warm words and promises of future action but no follow through.

Specific promises have been made and specifically ignored.

Rocna/CMP are becoming a laughing stock.

 

[Rigger Mortice]

They keep some of the old employees only as long as they need to, so as to do a handover and stay on their side during any pending legal proceedings, and then ditch them.

At first I thought that too. It certainly was what R1 tried to imply early on. However, it doesn't look like that is what is happening. Bumbury was over at METS in Amsterdam and, from what I hear, he was strutting about like the cock of the walk. Why on earth they don't keep the guy firmly under covers is beyond me.
Smith Snr was over also there poking around and pestering people.
The only one of the old brigade who appears to have been silenced is Smith Jnr, the anchorsmith of ill repute. I'm waiting for his reincarnation at some
future date.

 

[RichardS]

They have not been in contact at all.

Grant - I thought you had supplied information to RocnaOne? He must surely have passed it on to CMP.

Can't remember who told me this - I guess it must have been either you or R1.

Richard

 

[GrantKing]

Grant - I thought you had supplied information to RocnaOne? He must surely have passed it on to CMP.

Can't remember who told me this - I guess it must have been either you or R1.

Richard

Information was passed on to R1 but it did not go any further than him.

 

[youen]

Can Rocna1 tell us if he is still the spokesman fo Cmp or if he has been dismissed.Thanks

 

[Djbangi]

The other story coming out of METS was that there was a conspiracy, guess the suspects?, who were simply trying to discredit Rocna (and by association CMP). In my very humble opinion 'to discredit' implies the information is incorrect, the conspiritors thus dishonest and little nasty people (and CMP et al pure as the virgin snow).