Rocna Anchors acquired by Canada Metal Pacific

[Allan]

Rocna's historic marketing was very powerful, and most of that marketing was Craig Smith. So whatever our views on young Smith he was incredibly successful.


And interestingly there is no vehicle or mechanism to stop it happening again.

He's so good, he sold the company!

One would assume that, normally, CMP would put such mechanisms in place.

Allan

 

[Danny Jo]

Rocna's historic marketing was very powerful, and most of that marketing was Craig Smith. So whatever our views on young Smith he was incredibly successful. His position might have been dishonest, it might have been nasty and virtiolic - but many people do not care. Holdfast themselves were dishonest - but many people simply do not care

To support this view:

There are still people posting on this website, despite all the negative comments posted (many of which I would agree with), suggesting that even though they have an anchor not as advertised they are not going to change it. The thought that returning it might send a message, does not occur to them neither are they willing to return a replace with an anchor made honestly.

Neeves, I take your point to this extent: that knowingly buying from a dishonest manufacturer may encourage dishonesty. I guess that it is unlikely that I would have bought a Rocna last year if I had been aware of what has subsequently emerged on this thread.

But I bought the anchor in good faith, it has so far performed better than any others I have used, it appears to be very well made, and it continues to suit my purpose. I note, though, that doubts have been expressed about the ability of the steel used in the shank to resist bending forces in extreme conditions and that the company that produced my anchor has gone out of business. It's not that I don't care, I simply cannot see any useful purpose being served by attempting to force the retailer to take the hit. (I am certainly not going to insist on my legal rights where these conflict with my own sense of social responsibility, and indeed with my own interests, which are to support the kind of services that I enjoy using.) OK, so making a big fuss might ultimately damage CMP, but I don't have a quarrel with CMP, and I certainly don't want to be a pawn in someone else's game.

I have really appreciated the comments, information and advice that have been posted on this thread, and I respect the conviction motivating some of the Rocna critics. But the chorus of negative comments seems at times to take on a quasi-religious fervour. Some observers might even fancy that they hear the sound of axes being ground.

 

[idpnd]

It's not that I don't care, I simply cannot see any useful purpose being served by attempting to force the retailer to take the hit. (I am certainly not going to insist on my legal rights where these conflict with my own sense of social responsibility, and indeed with my own interests, which are to support the kind of services that I enjoy using.)

Retailer charity! I like it! I guess you would have kept driving your faulty Toyota as well? Especially after the tsunami and triple meltdown.

 

[FishyInverness]

Retailer charity! I like it! I guess you would have kept driving your faulty Toyota as well? Especially after the tsunami and triple meltdown.

That is a slightly different scenario, and actually I see exactly where Danny Jo is coming from and to a certain extent applaud his sentiment in supporting his retailer (something very few people want to do these days!) - essentially he has made a risk assessment looking at what he has which is performing fine - he may have paid over the odds because it was described one way and made another, but that hasn't made a difference to the product he has, I can see the logic in that.

A Toyota garage is a dealership, they are firmly in bed with the manufacturer, there are reciprocal agreements in place for them to carry the sign, service the vehicle, etc, etc - If it is established that a vehicle is suspect, the garage is well backed up to be able to support the cost of reparations.

A chandler is an independant retailer, they buy various kit from various people - there isn't always reciprocal agreements and if a chandler invests a few thousand in anchor stock from a distributor, then the anchor falls foul of CONSUMER law and all those anchors get returned, but the distributor tows the manufacturer line of "there's nothing actually wrong with them" it would take a long drawn out and costly legal battle to get the anchors returned and refunded - remember business-to-business sales do not enjoy the manifold rights that consumers do. Unfortunately for small business, in the UK anyway, the Government has seen fit to load the dice very heavily against the retailer - mainly because of the few bad apples we've seen on Watchdog, or variants throughout the ages....If you like and enjoy a good relationship with your retailer, and want to see them survive to sell another day, and the product still suits your needs despite the manufacturer's deception, you are more likely to make the decision not to punish the retailer for the manufacturer's bad behaviour...

 

[macd]

Retailer charity! I like it! I guess you would have kept driving your faulty Toyota as well? Especially after the tsunami and triple meltdown.

+1 with Fishy. And ditto to much of Danny Jo's comments.

I'll always support a local business (of all sorts) when there are no compelling reasons to do otherwise. For all sorts of reasons, far from being charity it's in my interests to do so (or was before I cleared off on the boat). Twice in the last four years I've been unable to source items either on-line or from chandlers local to me. And who's gone out of their way to get them and post them overseas: my old local chandler. That's worth something. In fact it's worth a mention: Manx Marine in Douglas, IoM.

What the tsunami has to do with it, I've no idea, unless that was Bumbury's fault, too. If he has that sort of clout, we're all in trouble.

 

[FishyInverness]

Manx Marine in Douglas, IoM.

Lol, even before my time served in the marine industry, I remember them from time spent living on the quay in Douglas ;-) Nice looking chandlery, never went in though, decided against buying a boat when I was offered a little dory moored just outside Manx Marine by a mate and it wasn't until 6 years later that I ended up playing with all things watery!

 

[jordanbasset]

I am also nervous about punishing the retailer. However the counter point is that if enough people do it then it is likely they will put pressure on Rocna/CMP to assist in the refund or refuse to stock any of their products again.
At the moment Rocna/CMP are employing the same people who caused the problems and misled people, they need to be aware of the problems they have caused.

 

[macd]

Agree, jordanbassett: it's the sort of conundrum that has no 'correct' answer. We'll each of us go with our interests and sense of what's right.

We'd all love to be a fly on the wall of the CMP boardroom. Their particular conundrum may be that this is still not a widely-known issue, however much we bash it about on this forum. Perhaps their seeming reluctance to make the promised public statements, much less clear promises, stems from a desire to keep it that way. If it achieves critical mass, their problem increases ten-fold. By keeping shtum, they have so far probably managed to keep Rocna's reputation largely intact.

 

[Twister_Ken]

I simply cannot see any useful purpose being served by attempting to force the retailer to take the hit.

My understanding is that the retailer would only take the hit short term, because in its turn it would return it to the national distributor as not-being-what-was-ordered.

Given the demise of Holdfast, the buck might stop with the distributor, but why feel a sense of responsibility towards it, a company you've never had dealings with, and of which you may not even know the name.

 

[maxi77]

I can fully understand people not wishing to punish good retailers, but and it is a very big but, they are the ones who can actually influence CMP in the short term. The licence to produce and sell ROCNA is only worth the money they have paid and will pay if they can sell the bl**dy things. If a lot of retailers start pulling out of the chain they may be interested in taking a new look at ROCNA. As it stands I expect all the complaints currently land on Mr Bambury's desk hence the apparent silence from CMP. Collapse of parts of their distribution chain may however focus senior management back to the ROCNA problem. I agree that the retailers and regional distributors are innocent but how do you get the chickens home to roost without involving them.

 

[FishyInverness]

My understanding is that the retailer would only take the hit short term, because in its turn it would return it to the national distributor as not-being-what-was-ordered.

Easier said than done. If the distributor holds to the company line that the metal specs, etc is fine as per requirements, or says "well, the company that made those claims is now in liquidation, they can't be returned" - then the retailer does not enjoy the legislation that the consumer does.

What happens when "bob's chandlery" tries to return £10000 of anchors back to the distributor and they say "we have no return agreement"? - Bob is £10000 down and THEN has to start costly legal proceedings - small businesses just don't have the protection that consumers do, and they are the first in the firing line for returned products - short term is, unfortunately, not the term for what could happen to the retailer!

I do, however, also follow the logic that it takes the distribution chain being shaken to take note of the suspect behaviour to stop it from happening and prevent a possible consumer revolt and resulting cost to the retailer - I was pretty astonished to see Laurence Taft of Piplers in PBO going into defending Rocna's corner, when potentially anyone buying a Rocna from piplers pre-2011 could easily return it under their consumer rights - if it was my company i'd be looking for a safer alternative product pretty sharpish rather than promoting my confidence in them despite blatant evidence to the contrary.

 

[smackdaddy]

So does anyone around here read the NZ Herald? Sunday's edition had a pretty sobering story. You should look it up.

I think I'm now really tired of this whole thing. It's just a bottomless pot of BS.

 

[Conachair]

So does anyone around here read the NZ Herald? Sunday's edition had a pretty sobering story. You should look it up.

I think I'm now really tired of this whole thing. It's just a bottomless pot of BS.

'Kin 'ell! Is that the same guy?

Yep, just read to the bottom.

Someone else can post the link.

 

[idpnd]

your wish is my command sir

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/celeste-anstiss/news/article.cfm?a_id=643&objectid=10778843

 

[Conachair]

your wish is my command sir

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/celeste-anstiss/news/article.cfm?a_id=643&objectid=10778843

Add Sensible Sentencing Trust to the google search and see what comes up

 

[Danny Jo]

Add Sensible Sentencing Trust to the google search and see what comes up

Alas, poor Yorick! But where would this thread, with over 1300 posts and 93,000 views, have got without him?

 

[Neeves]

Grant's record has nothing, or not much, to do with anchors and does not detract from Holdfast's deceit over RINA certification and use of the incorrect steels. Grant's record was never a secret, other than the recent 'Sleepout' case, and it merits consideration that he was employed by Holdfast with his record in the public domain (if you searched, and Auckland is not large, I am sure everyone knew). CMP show some considerable credit and restraint for not making the information more publicly available, directly or indirectly. Grant must have been a considerable thorn in their side but they kept very quiet.

I have not quite balanced out whether CMP's silence, on Grant's past, makes Grant's information more or less credible. Having been given increased access to information independent of Grant (from the factory in Shanghai and from Holdfast correspondence prior to Grant's employment, some of which still needs verification) I lean towards much of Grant's information - on the use of 420 steel - being credible. Sadly the only party/parties that could confirm some of Grant's assertions are Holdfast (Bamburys and Smiths) and in the absence of corroboration they remain 'assertions' rather than confirmed facts.

The Cruisers Forum, which had a thread vaguely similar to this, has been closed -possibly as a result of attacks on personalities rather than a focus on the 'technical' topic.

Jonathan

 

[toad_oftoadhall]

I have not quite balanced out whether CMP's silence, on Grant's past, makes Grant's information more or less credible.

Less.

 

[Conachair]

I lean towards much of Grant's information - on the use of 420 steel - being credible.

You seem very trusting, do you really think anything he said can be taken as credable any more?

http://www.safe-nz.org.nz/sxdb/kinggrant.htm

Offences

Indecent assault on a female aged between 12 -16 years over a period of time in 2003
Prior convictions for receiving stolen goods, receiving four stolen vehicles etc dating from 1982 plus an extensive history of fraud

 

[Conachair]

The Cruisers Forum, which had a thread vaguely similar to this, has been closed -possibly as a result of attacks on personalities rather than a focus on the 'technical' topic.

From the cruisers forum, by the guy who was ripped off recently.

Ok, I have read the thread:

I have been conducting a private investigation on GNK for about three weeks now. While I am aware of a grand total now of 59 people (and counting)that have been ripped off by GNK for a total of $2.15 million (and counting) in the past 20 plus years, the focus for this thread appears to be the industrial sabotage conducted by GNK whilst an employee of Rocna anchors, a firm from which he was summarily fired from for theft as a servant, and gross misconduct.

Let me be very clear in what I have found out, so that there is no grey area here: Whilst the Production Manager for Rocna Anchors (and whilst running a company called Juicy Consultants), GNK independently, and without the knowledge of Rocna Management, authorised the use of lower grade steel to be used in the production of the Rocna anchor, whilst on a business and quality control trip in China on behalf of Rocna.

GNK also embezzled $14,000 from the Rocna credit card, in order to pay for equine resources for his then 19 year old girlfriend Hayley Morgan of Tiger Equine. In addition, he conned $28,000 out of Rocna for the start up of NZ Sleepouts, collectively costing the organisation around $1,000,000 in corporate value and theft.

Please don't be scared off by GNK bleating about what "action" he is taking - he is all mouth and trousers. He has never actually "taken" any action in his life (except perhaps, pre-pubescent).

Of course, GNK has the absolute choice to challenge me in a legal sense with regard to everything I am saying - so c'mon Grant - come out and play with me.

You have obfuscation and untruth - but I have evidence.