Rocna Anchors acquired by Canada Metal Pacific

[bigwow]

I think CMP will be very pleased at the way this thread has "lost it's way" into a general anchor thread.

 

[Colvic Watson]

Interestingly if you Google "Rocna Anchors" the ybw thread is half way down the page, normally something as esoteric as a design of yacht anchor sees the ybw pages much higher because of the exceptional google-juice ybw carries. I guess they must be paying Google a hell of a lot to keep their sites high up. How much damage has it done them? I don't know but they banned RocnaOne from posting on forums so I guess they thought the threads were counter productive in the end. My guess is that unless West Marine are forced into a mass recall of anchors or Grant has some really damaging stuff then CMP will get away with it.

 

[evm1024]

I for one would be very interested in knowing what West Marine said to Rocna after learning of the problems and deceptions from Grant.

Where is WMOne when you need them?

As for a general recall I suspect that will happen when a boat ends up on the rocks and or the true extent of the 420 shank defective Rocna Anchors (what else can I call them) come to light. Just waiting for the production records to come to light.

regards

 

[BrianH]

My guess is that unless West Marine are forced into a mass recall of anchors or Grant has some really damaging stuff then CMP will get away with it.

Grant has not posted in a long time - let us hope that nothing has happened to him. RocnaOne has probably been pensioned off. So yes, come next spring when your average boat owner wanders into his local chandler, thinks, "hmm, need an anchor, let's see, that name sounds familiar, must be good, I'll take it."

"No such thing as bad publicity"

 

[GrantKing]

I for one would be very interested in knowing what West Marine said to Rocna after learning of the problems and deceptions from Grant.

Where is WMOne when you need them?

As for a general recall I suspect that will happen when a boat ends up on the rocks and or the true extent of the 420 shank defective Rocna Anchors (what else can I call them) come to light. Just waiting for the production records to come to light.

regards

reply from West Marine received 2hrs after my email to them:


Hi Mr. King,

Thanks very much for the note.

As you are aware, there are all kinds of assertions, accusations, tests, analysis, claims and counter claims regarding some unknown number of Rocna anchors, produced at some point in the past, and distributed somewhere in the world, that were manufactured differently than they were specified to be..

We have spent a great deal of time and effort trying to figure out what the heck is going on, whether or not there are actual problems with anchors we’ve sold or have in stock, and whether we should do anything regarding the products, the Customers who have purchased them, or the Suppliers involved.

We have reached out to experts inside and outside of our organization.

I should mention that we have had no concern about the financial impact of this issue. We simply want to do the “right thing”. But the “right thing” is not as clear in this case as it is in most cases concerning product quality. We have been doing business for a very long time, and have a lot of practice with recalls, quarantines, and the like… so we’re ready, willing, and able to do whatever we believe is appropriate, should we conclude that Rocna anchors pose a safety or other risk.

We will continue to research the situation and try to react in a professional, customer-focused fashion...just as we would with any other manufacturer’s products.

I will also tell you that I couldn’t care less about the money spent by Rocna, Manson, Fortress, Lewmar, or any other company, including our own, when it comes to how we will proceed, so you needn’t be concerned about that. We also are not influenced by threat or innuendo from any party in this matter. Again, we simply want to do what is “right”.

If you are an expert in this field, then you might understand how difficult it is to assess whether an anchor is “good” or “bad”, and that goes well beyond the question of whether the product was built to its specs.

Our returns for defective Rocna products are almost non-existent. The defective rate is as low as any other anchor we sell, and way, way less than most. And while there are those on the blogs and forums who have stated all kinds of things, our experience with the products has not yet led us to believe that Customers are at risk. If we thought they were, of course we would have acted far differently than we have.

We are doing all the research we can to understand whether there could be a problem that might truly affect anchors we’ve sold, and if we find that there is even a reasonable possibility of that, we’ll act quickly and decisively. But it would be irresponsible of us, and injurious to many Customers, if we acted without proper understanding of the facts.

It is not our place to worry about whether you’re “disgruntled”, a “fraudster”, or otherwise. Our responsibility is to take all input and do the best we possibly can to gather and assess all the information that might be useful, and proceed accordingly.

In conclusion, I thank you for your contribution to our research. We really do appreciate it.

I wish you the best,

Geoff Eisenberg
CEO
West Marine

 

[evm1024]

Thank you very much Grant!

Any chance production/shipping records will be published?

Regards, Ethan

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

Thank you very much Grant!

Any chance production/shipping records will be published?

Regards, Ethan

I second that. Thanks Grant, and the Rocna Bribery thread is getting a lot of views and is really begging for some of your informed input: http://www.ybw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=295136.

I never thought we'd find out the level of Rocna's warranty returns. They say they didn't go up, but I didn't deem Rocna a trustworthy source for that data, West Marine appear to support their claim:

Our returns for defective Rocna products are almost non-existent. The defective rate is as low as any other anchor we sell, and way, way less than most.

 

[smackdaddy]

reply from West Marine received 2hrs after my email to them:


Hi Mr. King,

Thanks very much for the note.

As you are aware, there are all kinds of assertions, accusations, tests, analysis, claims and counter claims regarding some unknown number of Rocna anchors, produced at some point in the past, and distributed somewhere in the world, that were manufactured differently than they were specified to be..

We have spent a great deal of time and effort trying to figure out what the heck is going on, whether or not there are actual problems with anchors we’ve sold or have in stock, and whether we should do anything regarding the products, the Customers who have purchased them, or the Suppliers involved.

We have reached out to experts inside and outside of our organization.

I should mention that we have had no concern about the financial impact of this issue. We simply want to do the “right thing”. But the “right thing” is not as clear in this case as it is in most cases concerning product quality. We have been doing business for a very long time, and have a lot of practice with recalls, quarantines, and the like… so we’re ready, willing, and able to do whatever we believe is appropriate, should we conclude that Rocna anchors pose a safety or other risk.

We will continue to research the situation and try to react in a professional, customer-focused fashion...just as we would with any other manufacturer’s products.

I will also tell you that I couldn’t care less about the money spent by Rocna, Manson, Fortress, Lewmar, or any other company, including our own, when it comes to how we will proceed, so you needn’t be concerned about that. We also are not influenced by threat or innuendo from any party in this matter. Again, we simply want to do what is “right”.

If you are an expert in this field, then you might understand how difficult it is to assess whether an anchor is “good” or “bad”, and that goes well beyond the question of whether the product was built to its specs.

Our returns for defective Rocna products are almost non-existent. The defective rate is as low as any other anchor we sell, and way, way less than most. And while there are those on the blogs and forums who have stated all kinds of things, our experience with the products has not yet led us to believe that Customers are at risk. If we thought they were, of course we would have acted far differently than we have.

We are doing all the research we can to understand whether there could be a problem that might truly affect anchors we’ve sold, and if we find that there is even a reasonable possibility of that, we’ll act quickly and decisively. But it would be irresponsible of us, and injurious to many Customers, if we acted without proper understanding of the facts.

It is not our place to worry about whether you’re “disgruntled”, a “fraudster”, or otherwise. Our responsibility is to take all input and do the best we possibly can to gather and assess all the information that might be useful, and proceed accordingly.

In conclusion, I thank you for your contribution to our research. We really do appreciate it.

I wish you the best,

Geoff Eisenberg
CEO
West Marine

Grant - would you also put up the email you sent to Mr. Eisenberg so we can see what he's responding to?

 

[GrantKing]

Grant has not posted in a long time - let us hope that nothing has happened to him. RocnaOne has probably been pensioned off. So yes, come next spring when your average boat owner wanders into his local chandler, thinks, "hmm, need an anchor, let's see, that name sounds familiar, must be good, I'll take it."

"No such thing as bad publicity"

I have been going through my files again over the last 2 weeks in order to decide what is the best way to release what I have and just how relevant most of it is.

With the few Rocna supporters trying to divert the discussion and avoid facing the facts it was starting to sound like a few of us were just "axe grinders" out to now bring CMP down.

The facts of the deception by Bambury have been established and I sent much information and details of metals used and numbers shipped by PM to rocnaone who finally informed me that he had not passed it all on to CMP.

The Bambury approach to the forums now is still the same as it was earlier this year in that when he was exposed for lying about the product metal he first attempted to discredit the information, then sent either PM's or private emails to forum posters, then when that didnt work he shut the postings down and prepared to ride out the storm in silence while having "stooges" take up the defence of him on forums.

With CMP launching RocnaONe on the forums much of the same approach resulted, ie : announce-defend-PM-go silent when the odds stacked too high.

With Bambury very much still embraced with CMP the current forum style of response and now silence is totally typical of his mode of operation. Early on in Feb 2010 there was forum discussion regarding the quality of product coming out China and the following email was sent to me by Bambury on 24 Feb 2010.

Hi Grant,

Please see the following posting as listed on the cruisers forum http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/f118/the-rocna-experience-25314-12.html#post408813

As you will see, this is a very new twist on the concerns with Chinese manufacturing with the focus being that there really is no quality control in China on the basis that people are either too afraid to speak up or simply don’t care

As you will also see, we have already lost the sale of one anchor as a result and surely more will follow. With this in mind we need a response and to make a positive statement quickly.

Here are my thoughts…

There are two different parts to the response we need to make, namely:

1. Externally - what we tell the world
2. What we do about it internally within Hold Fast and with Duratech
Externally we need to say something to include both RINA and the fact that we have regularly sent our own people to the factory (as, quote “experts in quality control”) but these comments will largely fall on deaf ears in this regard as it doesn’t really overcome their primary concern - and that is, even with these procedures in place the Chinese culture is such that no one will speak up anyway. I feel we need to go one step further and almost discredit their concerns by:

1. Producing a list of major corporate that are making quality product in China already and have a reputation for quality stuff
2. Have the factory give us a list of companies that will resonate with the American public as known for stringent quality standards (for example the oil industry people for whom they make drilling equipment drill heads)
Internally from the factory we are told that staff have lost their jobs for making quality errors or letting poor quality anchors get shipped out. Does this not simply perpetuate the fear and make staff to afraid to identify problems and actually say something in the vain hope that it will go unnoticed? This is exactly the type of problem that the comments on the forum refers, and I quote…”Were I ROCNA, I wouldn't be quite as willingly naive. If the people at the factory were too scared to actually say something is wrong with the product, then I wouldn't build a factory there”. Are they (the factory) not better off to provide training (based on our way of doing it) and educate their staff on how it should be done?

I am keen to work with you to generate a response on the forums as soon as possible. I’m also keen to get a better understanding of how we both manage and take advantage of promotional opportunities with the forums going forward and have already made a diary note to catch up with you on this as I am mindful of your workload and the need to incorporate this within the marketing domain.

Look forward to your reply.

Thanks and regards,

Steve

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

Grant - would you also put up the email you sent to Mr. Eisenberg so we can see what he's responding to?

Grant already has SD, here:

http://www.ybw.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3251582&postcount=903

 

[GrantKing]

Grant - would you also put up the email you sent to Mr. Eisenberg so we can see what he's responding to?

posting #903 page 91 of this thread

 

[GrantKing]

I second that. Thanks Grant, and the Rocna Bribery thread is getting a lot of views and is really begging for some of your informed input: http://www.ybw.com/forums/showthread.php?t=295136.

I never thought we'd find out the level of Rocna's warranty returns. They say they didn't go up, but I didn't deem Rocna a trustworthy source for that data, West Marine appear to support their claim:

Our returns for defective Rocna products are almost non-existent. The defective rate is as low as any other anchor we sell, and way, way less than most.

I will compile figures for warranty claims over the next few days however the staement quoted above not correct as far as "non-existent" goes.

Also of note is the fact that warranty claims from the Master Distributor for USA and Canada were huge and claimed before product was shipped to West Marine so that they did not encounter the worst of it.

 

[smackdaddy]

posting #903 page 91 of this thread

Cool - thanks.

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

I have been going through my files again over the last 2 weeks in order to decide what is the best way to release what I have and just how relevant most of it is.

The bribery of Rina strikes me as solid gold. We've already had a reporter on there talking about it. I'd pass your evidence to him ASAP. It's not been in the press yet so it's a new story, while the shank hardness issue is already yesterday's chip paper.

If they've actually dismissed staff it sounds like it's been full acknowledged by Rina so can't really be denied by Rocna.

Did the theft accusation go to court Grant? Where?

What did the Police have to say about the real reason you had the money?

Also how did Rocna come to owe you 80k?

 

[evm1024]

Rocna anchors do not fail "typical" conditions. That is to say you could anchor using a big rock most of the time.

When Rocna/Holdfast put substandard steel in the shanks in order to squeeze out more money from a deceived and unsuspecting boating public the failure comes when you need the anchor to hold the most. Good holdinng and a wind shift. Where Bisplate steel shanks would be strong enough to rotate the anchor held firmly in the seabed or just stay put with out failure the 420 shanks would bend.

In effect the 420 shank Rocna anchors are a time bomb, just lying dormant, waiting for the wrong conditions.

THe design is good and it was my first choice till I found out about the problem. And I did return my Rocna.

All this makes me think of the various structural failures of bridges, walkways and other parts of big buildings that we read about in the news every now and then. In those cases the engineering was good but somewhere along the build process someone substituted substandard steel and then people got hurt when loaded at the upper end but within specs.

REgards

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

I will compile figures for warranty claims over the next few days however the staement quoted above not correct as far as "non-existent" goes.

Also of note is the fact that warranty claims from the Master Distributor for USA and Canada were huge and claimed before product was shipped to West Marine so that they did not encounter the worst of it.

Thanks Grant, I'd really like to see those numbers.

So West Marine's returns were low for the 420 anchors and other distributors had high returns for them.

 

[GrantKing]

The bribery of Rina strikes me as solid gold. We've already had a reporter on there talking about it. I'd pass your evidence to him ASAP. It's not been in the press yet so it's a new story, while the shank hardness issue is already yesterday's chip paper.

If they've actually dismissed staff it sounds like it's been full acknowledged by Rina so can't really be denied by Rocna.

Did the theft accusation go to court Grant? Where?

What did the Police have to say about the real reason you had the money?

Also how did Rocna come to owe you 80k?

The theft accusation went to Court in Henderson , Auckland, New Zealand and a trial did not result there is no public release from the Courts. I made 4 appearances over 5 months while they stalled the hearings long enough for the CMP deal to be concluded. Evidence from their side was not given to me, including Bambury's statement, until 1 week before the final appearance last month.

That statement which was the basis for the charges said that I had been given the money by Bambury to pay legitimate costs to Rina for the certification expenses incurred and that instead of settling Rocna's accounts in CASH with that money I instead stole it. He stated that some time after the event he received invoices from Rina that indicated that I had not paid the CASH to them as I had been instructed to do.

Now , the first question is, why would a Company operating in NZ who always paid international invoices by bank transfer instruct someone to go to China with cash to pay an entity as large as Rina?

What Bambury did not know was that I had copies of all email correspondence and instructions downloaded to my own servers in 3 different locations and when he cut off my access to the Rocna mail servers and database, I still had them.

Unlike him I did not just log on the the server to read and respond to emails , I downloaded them all because I needed all information at hand at all times, especially while travelling into the boondocks of China. So cutting off access to the server did not destroy the counter evidence that I had.

Because I had my files included in my defence they could not be released publicly until trial, and Bambury knew that, thus suppressing the vital information that would have lead to a closer look by CMP during their due diligence period.

Bambury owed me for the following:

$5875.00 for construction of the "Anchors Direct" website I built in order for him to sell Rocna's worldwide into any area that wanted them online. This also removed the requirement that Smith be allowed to sell into any country or region that there was not a master distributor already in place. The Anchors Direct sales were to be split between Bambury and myself , however he kept all proceeds of sales for himself and my share is not included in my claim.

$12,500.00 for IP case research and preperation of Court action against Manson for a claim of breach of IP with the Supreme. This action did not eventuate as ther was no clear evidence that Manson had copied the design and in fact it resulted in a statement from Smith in emails that Rocna's IP would not stand up in Court if challenged by Manson.

$9750.00 for preperation of all legal files and case study, research, collation and summary documents for filing Bambury's defence against the claim by CNC for $100k of unpaid stock ex NZ in 2009.

$16,500.00 as payments made by myself for my vehicle that was registered in the Holdfast name for tax purposes and that Bambury sent thugs to take from me on the night he dismissed me.

$35,500.00 for payment agreed to for 20hrs per week for 71 weeks @ $25ph ( this being over and above the base 20 hrs per week that was paid)

The rest are various amounts that do not need detailing.

The filing of court action also prevented this claim from proceeding until the police action was concluded, however with the liquidation of Bambury's Company there is absolutely no possibility of any likely return to me.

 

[GrantKing]

Thanks Grant, I'd really like to see those numbers.

So West Marine's returns were low for the 420 anchors and other distributors had high returns for them.

That is correct but the same was for the rest of the world as most of the bent ones were handled by Rocna head office in Auckland as initial enquiry came through emails direct from customers with failures.

The USA was receiving NZ ones until the middle of 2009. The rest of the world was receiving Chinese 420's from late 2008/ early 2009.

The dormant risk factor in USA is huge compared with the rest of the world.

Of other note that seems to be constantly overlooked, or ignored, is that the BIs80 shanks will bend slightly under side load as well however they spring back to their original straight form when the load is released whereas the 420 will bend easier but will not return to straight , it remains bent as does the 620 but to a lesser extent. The 620 is also more brittle due to the chromium addition to the metal.

 

[evm1024]

I don't know about all of you but I for one am taking copies of each of the E-mail that Grant releases.

Not saying that the thread would ever be shutdown or that you could not find them elsewhere. I just want a copy on my pc for future reference.

Regards and thanks Grant

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

The theft accusation went to Court in Henderson , Auckland, New Zealand and a trial did not result there is no public release from the Courts. I made 4 appearances over 5 months while they stalled the hearings long enough for the CMP deal to be concluded. Evidence from their side was not given to me, including Bambury's statement, until 1 week before the final appearance last month.

Cheers.

That statement which was the basis for the charges said that I had been given the money by Bambury to pay legitimate costs to Rina for the certification expenses incurred and that instead of settling Rocna's accounts in CASH with that money I instead stole it. He stated that some time after the event he received invoices from Rina that indicated that I had not paid the CASH to them as I had been instructed to do.

I'm amazed he had the balls to go to court with that. What company pays invoices in cash?

Now , the first question is, why would a Company operating in NZ who always paid international invoices by bank transfer instruct someone to go to China with cash to pay an entity as large as Rina?

I agree. Totally lacking in credibility.

What Bambury did not know was that I had copies of all email correspondence and instructions downloaded to my own servers in 3 different locations and when he cut off my access to the Rocna mail servers and database, I still had them. Unlike him I did not just log on the the server to read and respond to emails , I downloaded them all because I needed all information at hand at all times, especially while travelling into the boondocks of China. So cutting off access to the server did not destroy the counter evidence that I had. Because I had my files included in my defence they could not be released publicly until trial, and Bambury knew that, thus suppressing the vital information that would have lead to a closer look by CMP during their due diligence period.

I really think this is gold dust. As you've said before you're free to release it now - I think you should.

Bambury owed me for the following:

$5875.00 for construction of the "Anchors Direct" website I built in order for him to sell Rocna's worldwide into any area that wanted them online. This also removed the requirement that Smith be allowed to sell into any country or region that there was not a master distributor already in place. The Anchors Direct sales were to be split between Bambury and myself , however he kept all proceeds of sales for himself and my share is not included in my claim.

I get this. A sort of sideline really.

$12,500.00 for IP case research and preperation of Court action against Manson for a claim of breach of IP with the Supreme. This action did not eventuate as ther was no clear evidence that Manson had copied the design and in fact it resulted in a statement from Smith in emails that Rocna's IP would not stand up in Court if challenged by Manson.

$9750.00 for preperation of all legal files and case study, research, collation and summary documents for filing Bambury's defence against the claim by CNC for $100k of unpaid stock ex NZ in 2009.

I don't really get this. As an employee why wer eyou paying these expenses out of your own pocket, and why did you carry on doing so when you weren't getting the cash back.

$16,500.00 as payments made by myself for my vehicle that was registered in the Holdfast name for tax purposes and that Bambury sent thugs to take from me on the night he dismissed me.

$35,500.00 for payment agreed to for 20hrs per week for 71 weeks @ $25ph ( this being over and above the base 20 hrs per week that was paid)

Understood, pretty disgusting on their part to say the least.

The rest are various amounts that do not need detailing.

You've got the bulk of it. As an employee I don't think I'd ever get myself in the position where my company owed me a lot of cash. But that's easy for me to acheive, not so easy for others.

The filing of court action also prevented this claim from proceeding until the police action was concluded, however with the liquidation of Bambury's Company there is absolutely no possibility of any likely return to me.

Sorry to hear that, must be sickening.

Thanks for being so open.