Rocna Anchors acquired by Canada Metal Pacific

[Rigger Mortice]

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

I have been told that he is under contract until the end of the year so, in that sense, he is still the spokesman. It is unlikely that the contract will be renewed.
However, it does look as if he has been told to keep quiet, so we have ended up with a spokesman who has been struck dumb.

 

[Bosun Higgs]

In my very humble opinion 'to discredit' implies the information is incorrect, .

Do you know what the correct information is? I dont. I know what I have read. I know what I have been told by pm and email. But whether either side is telling the full story or has correct info - that I do not know.

This forum seems to have accepted entirely the story from one side and on that basis damned the other side. But very much without seeing evidence of a standard that would stand up in a court.

And the approach of some anti Rocna posters ( but not Grant KIng who is quite measured in what he says) is so strident as to make me very suspicious.

 

[maxi77]

Do you know what the correct information is? I dont. I know what I have read. I know what I have been told by pm and email. But whether either side is telling the full story or has correct info - that I do not know.

This forum seems to have accepted entirely the story from one side and on that basis damned the other side. But very much without seeing evidence of a standard that would stand up in a court.

And the approach of some anti Rocna posters ( but not Grant KIng who is quite measured in what he says) is so strident as to make me very suspicious.

Mind you I can remember the days when the Rocna hunting dogs would attack anything that moved on this forum. Is it not strange that since the changed manufacturing standards came to light those dogs have been silent.

Perhaps the pre revalations bluster from Rocna was equally suspicious. In my opinion it would appear Rocna have been hoisted upon their own petard, and perhaps CMP may end up dumping the brand before too long.

 

[Rigger Mortice]

This forum seems to have accepted entirely the story from one side and on that basis damned the other side. But very much without seeing evidence of a standard that would stand up in a court.

On the main issue of the wrong grade of material being used Rocna denied it for ages, until evidence was posted on the web and their credibility was trashed. They then magically discovered that what was being said was true.

On the other issues it does sound as if it is going to be tested in court in the not too distant future.

However, I'm not sure why you are complaining. CMP have had ample opportunity to put their side of the story....they've even been given special permission to post it....but they have elected not to do so. Even a simple question about the grade of stainless steel has been quietly swept under the carpet.

 

[Sybarite]

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

For your interest : the French forum "Hisse-et-Oh" has referred to this forum to follow up on the Rocna situation.

 

[Blue_mischief]

Another thread

Came across this thread while looking for something else.

http://www.trawlerforum.com/t42241641/rocna-revealed/?page=13&sort=oldestFirst

Pages 13 & 16 particularly interesting.

 

[Sybarite]

On the "hisse et oh" forum they are getting a group together to negotiate a collective purchase of Kobra 2 anchors.

Perhaps an approach you could consider for general equipment purchases.

 

[jordanbasset]

They have not been in contact at all.

Thanks for the reply Grant, it is very illuminating. Do not wish to insult you but when you first appeared on this site I was thought you were just another disgruntled sacked employee with an axe to grind. However since then you have consistently given information in a public forum which clearly supports your viewpoint.
On the other hand Rocna have been deafening in their silence when the pertinent questions are put to them. At the least I would have expected them to contact you and fully investigate what you have said, if only to try and refute it. What I particularly distrust is that they do seem to be communicating some information by p.m. and e-mails to selected individuals but unwilling to put it on a public forum, why is this. Bearing in mind one of their priority initiatives of the memo of the 2nd November was to "Establish Timely and Accurate Communications.", one wonders how seriously they are taking this.

 

[GrantKing]

Thanks for the reply Grant, it is very illuminating. Do not wish to insult you but when you first appeared on this site I was thought you were just another disgruntled sacked employee with an axe to grind. However since then you have consistently given information in a public forum which clearly supports your viewpoint.
On the other hand Rocna have been deafening in their silence when the pertinent questions are put to them. At the least I would have expected them to contact you and fully investigate what you have said, if only to try and refute it. What I particularly distrust is that they do seem to be communicating some information by p.m. and e-mails to selected individuals but unwilling to put it on a public forum, why is this. Bearing in mind one of their priority initiatives of the memo of the 2nd November was to "Establish Timely and Accurate Communications.", one wonders how seriously they are taking this.

Thats ok I have been called far worse by them during the last year.

The communication by PM and private emails instead of answering in public is a Bambury trademark and always has been. By dealing with individuals you have an opportunity to sell your viewpoint and persuade your customer that you are truthful and honest in order for them to feel priviledged that you both to contact them personally. The mark of a good salesman.

It also means that you do not face having to justify your answers to the other forum members who may have questions that you do not want to answer or take too long to spin the most favourable reply.

It just doesnt work because you are eventually exposed for not telling the truth and their will always be a forum member who will post your replies for the others to pick apart, so why not just be truthful and answer in public?

At least Craig always posted in public even if the answers he gave or the statements he made rubbed others up the wrong way.You at least got an answer and could, if you chose, argue the point endlessly but it was all out in the open.

Dont expect the leopard to change his spots but you have every right to get straight answers from CMP instead of the rahter empty "memorandum notices" published that do not dispell the concerns of the customer.

A clear path forward is the only announcement most want to hear from CMP, the previous history and problems remain with Bambury and his company.

Any coverage of past faults or replacements is only at the goodwill of CMP who are under no obligation to do anything prior to their takeover and while they are to be praised for first announcing that they would replace substandard anchors, they should have done their homework fully before making a rod for their backs.

When I read their announcement I immediately knew that Bambury and Smith had not disclosed the full use of the 420 to them. Smith was informed fully back in May this year when he requested details from me so he cannot plead ignorance of the facts. If he did disclose it to CMP during their due diligence process then they are very foolish to have tried to continue the lies and deception.

I hope they are above that and from my research I believed they were a reputable company, however the actions at Mets are making me seriously doubt just who is running the circus.

 

[Djbangi]

Bosun

You are quite correct we are only getting one side to the story. Part of that story is that more anchors than have been admitted were made from Q420 steel.

It would be easy for CMP to categorically deny the allegation. They can make that denial in one sentence. They could have RocnaONE, who was given special dispensation to post, to make the same denial in one sentence.

Given the fact the allegation has been repeated, examples have been given of failures that could be attributed to use of 420 steel and given there could be a lot of anchors made from the 420 steel the question I would ask is:

Why has the statement not been refuted?

To me its not a question of refund (that is another issue) but if as Grant King alleges there are many more Q420 shanked anchors out there then I would hope anyone with integrity that can confirm or deny the allegation would make the information public. The owners of those anchors can then be made aware and they can decide if they want to take the risk in continuing to use them. I fully accept it might take time to check the allegations but it has been said CMP visited the factory in China (how difficult is it to check records). They have Grant King to ask, they have Mr bambury and Mr Smith and Holdfast records they should be able to access. It should not be difficult to find a couple of cusotmers wioth 2009 vintage Rocna - buy them back, test them. None of this is rocket science and to my mind could be completed comforably in a month.

A further point might be if CMP have not checked then CMP lack sincerity, if CMP actually know Grant King is correct but worry about the financial consequencies then they are putting money ahead of safety and a concern for their customer. Grant King implies they have not queried his information with him, which indicates to me doubts as to their sincerity - they might not like him (and prefer Bambury and Smith) but that does not make his information incorrect.

People are not Rocna bashing - they simply want straight answers to very, very simple questions. If we had had straight answers - this thread would have died. Do not blame the people who post here - the answer is in CMPs hands and they are choosing to ignore the questions.

 

[Sybarite]

Given the fact the allegation has been repeated, examples have been given of failures that could be attributed to use of 420 steel and given there could be a lot of anchors made from the 420 steel the question I would ask is:

.

From Delfin's post on the trawler forum, if you take a steel punch and hit the shank a sharp tap and it leaves a dent then it's the 420 steel.

 

[Delfin]

From Delfin's post on the trawler forum, if you take a steel punch and hit the shank a sharp tap and it leaves a dent then it's the 420 steel.

Actually, all punches would be harder than 420 steel, but you can compare the dent on G4 chain formed when you tap it with a punch to the indent formed on the Rocna with equal force. G4 is about 400 mPA, so the 620 steel would not have much of a dent while the 420 steel would have a comparable dent to the chain. Not precise, but I think it will get you in the ball park, especially if the only two options are 420 steel and 620 steel.

 

[bob234]

When I read their announcement I immediately knew that Bambury and Smith had not disclosed the full use of the 420 to them. Smith was informed fully back in May this year when he requested details from me so he cannot plead ignorance of the facts. If he did disclose it to CMP during their due diligence process then they are very foolish to have tried to continue the lies and deception.

Hi Grant,

Any signs yet of CMP becoming more aware of the previous antics of their new employees? Or of outcome of hearings? Would love to hear that justice is being done and it's gone surprisingly quiet.

Bob

 

[GrantKing]

justice

Hi Grant,

Any signs yet of CMP becoming more aware of the previous antics of their new employees? Or of outcome of hearings? Would love to hear that justice is being done and it's gone surprisingly quiet.

Bob

Bob,

CMP have been made aware of the antics of the Bambury's but they still continue to employ Steve. Judging by the reports back from METS he is obviously flavour of the month with them and so they make their own rod for their backs.

Court action outcome:

Charges against me in the NZ Courts brought by Bambury were today dismissed.

I will go into more detail over the next few days along with other critical evidence from documents I could not disclose while the matter was before the Courts.

The basic overview is that Bambury complained to the police that I had stolen an amount of around 5k USD from him during my last trip to Shanghai.

He claimed in his evidence that this money was for me to make cash payments to Rina for expenses incurred in obtaining certification.

The facts , backed up by emails and other written informations, are that he instructed me to bribe certain officals at Rina and at another manufacturing facility with this cash amount in order to gain certification. Upon my return to NZ he praised me for a job well done and announced to the world that certification had been obtained.

Bambury then discovered while at the Sanctuary Cove boat show in 2010 that full certification had not been issued and in fact only drawing and seabed approval had been given.

He then set about to remove me in the most underhanded and insulting manner possible.

He has done everything he can to suppress all of the evidence I have been sitting on since June 2010, however it is now open to reveal the rest of what has not been aired and also to answer any questions that forum members have that are still either inanswered or misleading in the "official" replies received and published by Bambury.

 

[Delfin]

Grant -

Congratulations! I'm sorry you were so shabbily treated, and appreciate your professionalism in dealing with this. Vindication can't compensate for what you have been through, but it's nice to have nonetheless.

 

[Twister_Ken]

Grant. Congrats. Good feeling to win a court case isn't it. But not something you want to make a habit of. Trust you'll be awarded costs too.

Can't believe the b*stards would be dumb enough to admit in a court case that they'd attempted to bribe a third party. In most jurisdictions bribery is an offence in its own right.

 

[GrantKing]

Grant. Congrats. Good feeling to win a court case isn't it. But not something you want to make a habit of. Trust you'll be awarded costs too.

Can't believe the b*stards would be dumb enough to admit in a court case that they'd attempted to bribe a third party. In most jurisdictions bribery is an offence in its own right.

Thanks Ken but they did not admit to it, they said the money was for certification expenses and that I had to pay it in cash???? when I got there.

My documentation says otherwise.

 

[Twister_Ken]

Also dumb to go to big-law with a 5K dispute. Viewed dispassionately on risk/reward that makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[GrantKing]

Also dumb to go to big-law with a 5K dispute. Viewed dispassionately on risk/reward that makes no sense whatsoever.

But it did shut me down with critical information that would no doubt have made CMP think twice about the deal to take over, retain Bambury and do proper due diligence so that they understood fully just what they were buying in to.

 

[Rigger Mortice]

That's excellent news Grant. Well done, and I hope that it takes some of the pressure of you.