And you thought ANZ was a bad owner...
Evertonian
Thread Starter
And you thought ANZ was a bad owner...
Ansett barter intrigue
By LEONIE WOOD
Friday 23 November 2001
There certainly was a "smoky" bidder for Ansett. One that wanted the whole kit and caboodle, and didn't give a damn about poring over the business' books.
A bid that involved huge barter deals, swapping billions of dollars of jet fuel for three-quarters of Australia's second-ranked carrier. And it was all engineered by a German living at the Sheraton Hotel in Beirut.
If everything went to plan, that bidder would trump the $1.1 billion offered by Melbourne businessmen Solomon Lew and Lindsay Fox - in fact, trump it several times over.
Just like the Fox-Lew bid, there was talk of upgrading the airline. But the proposal, by a Finnish company called Wimco-Erica, which has an address in Russia and operates from Lebanon, was ignored by Ansett's administrators, who decided it was not exactly kosher.
Wimco-Erica's president and 50per cent shareholder, German national Horst Hamm, sent letters to Ansett administrators Mark Mentha and Mark Korda, of accounting firm Andersen, outlining a plan to swap $US2 billion ($A3.9 billion) of jet fuel for 75 per cent of Ansett.
advertisement
advertisement
Mr Hamm also offered certificates of deposit with a face value of $US1 billion, which are said to be locked in a safe at a Beirut insurance company.
In his quest, Mr Hamm commissioned the help of New Zealand-born Dugall Lamont Harcourt, an engine inventor who lives on the outskirts of Brisbane, and John Philip Rivett, a Queensland business associate of Mr Harcourt who runs SME Venture Capital Brokers.
Mr Rivett said Mr Hamm, who is in his 70s and lives at the Sheraton Lancaster Hotel in Beirut, had lived in South America, South Africa and Nicaragua where, Mr Rivett said, "he was actually kidnapped by the Sandanistas and nearly executed".
Mr Hamm claims to own 50 per cent of Avangard, a Russian-registered company that owns 80per cent of BaltPort, a company developing a port and oil refinery near Primorsk, on the Baltic Sea.
He wants to sell Ansett's administrators 38 million barrels of aviation fuel each month for a year for $US2billion or, as he claimed, about 1.2US cents a litre off his normal sale price.
The administrators must draft contracts to buy the fuel, then get "your bank or the Australian Bank (sic)" to issue stand-by letters of credit in favor of Wimco-Erica and the administrators.
The letters of credit would be cashed at European banks for say, $US1.8 billion, or 10per cent below face value. The proceeds would pay for 75 per cent of Ansett.
"So we have the airline fuel starting and we can build a more profitable airline as the other major airlines (sic)," Mr Hamm wrote in late September. "The stand-by letters of credit pay all your debts and the fuel is what makes your airline profitable because it stays between you and me.
"We are able, ready and willing to do this transaction immediately ... In my opinion, this is the fastest way to pay your creditors and then your airline can work in that new joint venture 25/75 per cent. This transaction can be done in five banking days."
In effect, Ansett's creditors were being asked to cash in 456 million barrels of Russian fuel. Exactly why Wimco-Erica could not do this itself was unclear.
Attached to Mr Hamm's proposal was a reference from Hassan S. Harb, chief executive and leading shareholder of the Lebanese United Insurance & Reinsurance Company SA (LUI), who said Mr Hamm was "a well-known person to us: we have been doing business for the last few years". Mr Harb did not state the nature of that business.
Mr Harb also claimed that Mr Hamm "has successfully closed with our government a very big gas fuel deal and in this moment his company is bidding for other tenders. All documents from (the) Russian Government and product proof were presented without any problem."
Unfortunately, Mr Harb's letter did not explain what documents might have been required from the Russia Government nor, indeed, why they were needed.
However, Mr Harb insisted that $US1billion of cash deposit certificates, available to Mr Hamm to use for "whatever reason or business deal he wishes", were housed in LUI's safe. "These certificates are issued by a first-class bank," he wrote, neglecting to specify which bank. Helpfully, LUI could arrange insurance for the administrators, if required, once the deal began.
The administrators did not respond, so Wimco-Erica's Australian agents kicked in. In a letter to "Mark Menthor" (sic) dated September 27, Mr Harcourt claimed Wimco-Erica was offering up to $US1billion of loans to Ansett (against the Beirut certificates of deposit) plus $US2 billion of jet fuel.
"The offer by my principal is no flash in the pan," Mr Harcourt wrote. "I have been researching major acquisitions for him in A-NZ for several years and he has held the ambition of making a substantial investment in the region for that time."
Mr Harcourt, whom Mr Rivett described as an inventor, met Mr Hamm three years ago. It seems Mr Harcourt had designed a new engine and "he's been chasing Horst to back this new engine", Mr Rivett said.
On October 1, Mr Harcourt again told the administrators that Mr Hamm wanted to buy all of Ansett in "a fairly simple transaction ... We do not see the necessity for any extended due-diligence period. He is prepared for the problems".
Again, no response. Two days later, Mr Harcourt delivered another missive to Mr Mentha: "I can't believe that I read in The Financial Review on Monday that your partner was quoted as saying how difficult it would be to sell Ansett in the current conditions and yet you have ignored our genuine attempts to obtain information."
Mr Harcourt then tried some brinkmanship to grab Mr Mentha's attention. He withdrew the original offer and pledged that Mr Hamm "hereby unconditionally offers to beat any other genuine commercial offer for the companies, assets or business of Ansett by $A20million".
Mr Harcourt and Mr Rivett flew to Beirut where they stayed with Mr Hamm and his associates at the Sheraton Lancaster for four days examining the certificates of deposit issued by "a very strong", but still unnamed, bank.
Mr Harcourt rejected suggestions that copies of the certificates should be sent to the administrators "as they can be abused".
"You need only ring Mr Hassan Harb and confirm them, or you could do what I did and fund my own way over here and take a look," he wrote on October 6. He then threatened to convene a meeting of Ansett's creditors to discuss Mr Hamm's proposal, an extremely costly proposition for the administrators.
In desperation, Wimco-Erica's Australian agents approached some of Ansett's creditors directly. Mr Rivett wrote to National Australia Bank, which is owed about $100 million, and met a manager at a branch of Commonwealth Bank in Brisbane.
The banks politely told the businessmen that although they were interested to see an offer, it was up to the administrators to sell the airline.
Mr Rivett noted that while Mr Harcourt was in Beirut, he met the Australian Trade Commissioner "who was aghast that Mr Hamm's genuine attempt to invest up to $US3 billion into Australia were being ignored. A report to the minister will be on his desk by the end of the week".
Mr Rivett indicated to The Age that he knew little about Wimco-Erica, but he believed the cash certificates were credible. He did not know where Wimco-Erica was registered, but suggested it might be registered in several countries.
In 1994, Wimco-Erica raised a mention in The Nonproliferation Review, a journal published by the Centre for Nonproliferation Studies at the Monterey Institute of International Studies. The journal features policy debates and analysis about weapons of mass destruction.
The Review noted that Wimco-Erica in early 1994 apparently obtained a guarantee from the Reconstruction and Development Bank of Latvia to the value of $US4.5 billion to buy 32.9kilograms of osmium-187.
The journal noted: "In recent years, Latvia has become a conduit country between the former Soviet Union and the West in the illegal trade of radioactive materials."
Osmium-187 is a dense and expensive metal used for making pen nibs and light filaments. It has a long radioactive life and is used to determine the age of rocks.
Wimco-Erica also drew a mention in United Nations Sanctions Management: A Case Study of the Iraq Sanctions Committee 1990-1994 (Transnational Publishers Inc, NY) by Munich academic Paul Conlon.
The study indicated Wimco-Erica was a small group behind colossal barter deals - swapping Russian oil, say, for Cuban sugar.
In 1993, Wimco-Erica gained the apparent backing of the Finnish mission to the UN as it tried to land another mega-deal. At the time, Wimco-Erica wanted to sell the UN or Iraqi Government - it didn't seem to matter which - three million tonnes of sugar, packed in 50-kilogram jute bags, deliverable over the next year.
The sugar was valued at $US786 million - but for the UN, a special price of $US750 million. The UN (or the Iraqi Government, if the UN would sanction a deal with Iraq) had to supply a letter of credit from a "top 50 World Prime Bank".
As Dr Conlon noted, the sugar deal was huge - enough to satisfy Iraq's demand for six years - and a sugar trade association "identified the sugar ... as most certainly being of Cuban origin". Cuba's trade was severely limited by a US-imposed economic embargo.
Dr Conlon found that the chairman of the sanctions committee convinced the Finnish Government to withdraw its apparent support for Wimco-Erica, and scotched the plan in 24hours.
Mr Rivett this week refused to divulge the name of the bank on the cash certificates in Beirut, but lambasted Ansett's administrators for ignoring Mr Hamm's proposal.
Asked if he believed Mr Hamm or Wimco-Erica had enough credibility and expertise to run an airline, Mr Rivett said without a hint of irony: "The question of management and credibility is an issue, but he (Mr Hamm) said he would employ the best (management) in the world - and isn't that what Air New Zealand did?"
By LEONIE WOOD
Friday 23 November 2001
There certainly was a "smoky" bidder for Ansett. One that wanted the whole kit and caboodle, and didn't give a damn about poring over the business' books.
A bid that involved huge barter deals, swapping billions of dollars of jet fuel for three-quarters of Australia's second-ranked carrier. And it was all engineered by a German living at the Sheraton Hotel in Beirut.
If everything went to plan, that bidder would trump the $1.1 billion offered by Melbourne businessmen Solomon Lew and Lindsay Fox - in fact, trump it several times over.
Just like the Fox-Lew bid, there was talk of upgrading the airline. But the proposal, by a Finnish company called Wimco-Erica, which has an address in Russia and operates from Lebanon, was ignored by Ansett's administrators, who decided it was not exactly kosher.
Wimco-Erica's president and 50per cent shareholder, German national Horst Hamm, sent letters to Ansett administrators Mark Mentha and Mark Korda, of accounting firm Andersen, outlining a plan to swap $US2 billion ($A3.9 billion) of jet fuel for 75 per cent of Ansett.
advertisement
advertisement
Mr Hamm also offered certificates of deposit with a face value of $US1 billion, which are said to be locked in a safe at a Beirut insurance company.
In his quest, Mr Hamm commissioned the help of New Zealand-born Dugall Lamont Harcourt, an engine inventor who lives on the outskirts of Brisbane, and John Philip Rivett, a Queensland business associate of Mr Harcourt who runs SME Venture Capital Brokers.
Mr Rivett said Mr Hamm, who is in his 70s and lives at the Sheraton Lancaster Hotel in Beirut, had lived in South America, South Africa and Nicaragua where, Mr Rivett said, "he was actually kidnapped by the Sandanistas and nearly executed".
Mr Hamm claims to own 50 per cent of Avangard, a Russian-registered company that owns 80per cent of BaltPort, a company developing a port and oil refinery near Primorsk, on the Baltic Sea.
He wants to sell Ansett's administrators 38 million barrels of aviation fuel each month for a year for $US2billion or, as he claimed, about 1.2US cents a litre off his normal sale price.
The administrators must draft contracts to buy the fuel, then get "your bank or the Australian Bank (sic)" to issue stand-by letters of credit in favor of Wimco-Erica and the administrators.
The letters of credit would be cashed at European banks for say, $US1.8 billion, or 10per cent below face value. The proceeds would pay for 75 per cent of Ansett.
"So we have the airline fuel starting and we can build a more profitable airline as the other major airlines (sic)," Mr Hamm wrote in late September. "The stand-by letters of credit pay all your debts and the fuel is what makes your airline profitable because it stays between you and me.
"We are able, ready and willing to do this transaction immediately ... In my opinion, this is the fastest way to pay your creditors and then your airline can work in that new joint venture 25/75 per cent. This transaction can be done in five banking days."
In effect, Ansett's creditors were being asked to cash in 456 million barrels of Russian fuel. Exactly why Wimco-Erica could not do this itself was unclear.
Attached to Mr Hamm's proposal was a reference from Hassan S. Harb, chief executive and leading shareholder of the Lebanese United Insurance & Reinsurance Company SA (LUI), who said Mr Hamm was "a well-known person to us: we have been doing business for the last few years". Mr Harb did not state the nature of that business.
Mr Harb also claimed that Mr Hamm "has successfully closed with our government a very big gas fuel deal and in this moment his company is bidding for other tenders. All documents from (the) Russian Government and product proof were presented without any problem."
Unfortunately, Mr Harb's letter did not explain what documents might have been required from the Russia Government nor, indeed, why they were needed.
However, Mr Harb insisted that $US1billion of cash deposit certificates, available to Mr Hamm to use for "whatever reason or business deal he wishes", were housed in LUI's safe. "These certificates are issued by a first-class bank," he wrote, neglecting to specify which bank. Helpfully, LUI could arrange insurance for the administrators, if required, once the deal began.
The administrators did not respond, so Wimco-Erica's Australian agents kicked in. In a letter to "Mark Menthor" (sic) dated September 27, Mr Harcourt claimed Wimco-Erica was offering up to $US1billion of loans to Ansett (against the Beirut certificates of deposit) plus $US2 billion of jet fuel.
"The offer by my principal is no flash in the pan," Mr Harcourt wrote. "I have been researching major acquisitions for him in A-NZ for several years and he has held the ambition of making a substantial investment in the region for that time."
Mr Harcourt, whom Mr Rivett described as an inventor, met Mr Hamm three years ago. It seems Mr Harcourt had designed a new engine and "he's been chasing Horst to back this new engine", Mr Rivett said.
On October 1, Mr Harcourt again told the administrators that Mr Hamm wanted to buy all of Ansett in "a fairly simple transaction ... We do not see the necessity for any extended due-diligence period. He is prepared for the problems".
Again, no response. Two days later, Mr Harcourt delivered another missive to Mr Mentha: "I can't believe that I read in The Financial Review on Monday that your partner was quoted as saying how difficult it would be to sell Ansett in the current conditions and yet you have ignored our genuine attempts to obtain information."
Mr Harcourt then tried some brinkmanship to grab Mr Mentha's attention. He withdrew the original offer and pledged that Mr Hamm "hereby unconditionally offers to beat any other genuine commercial offer for the companies, assets or business of Ansett by $A20million".
Mr Harcourt and Mr Rivett flew to Beirut where they stayed with Mr Hamm and his associates at the Sheraton Lancaster for four days examining the certificates of deposit issued by "a very strong", but still unnamed, bank.
Mr Harcourt rejected suggestions that copies of the certificates should be sent to the administrators "as they can be abused".
"You need only ring Mr Hassan Harb and confirm them, or you could do what I did and fund my own way over here and take a look," he wrote on October 6. He then threatened to convene a meeting of Ansett's creditors to discuss Mr Hamm's proposal, an extremely costly proposition for the administrators.
In desperation, Wimco-Erica's Australian agents approached some of Ansett's creditors directly. Mr Rivett wrote to National Australia Bank, which is owed about $100 million, and met a manager at a branch of Commonwealth Bank in Brisbane.
The banks politely told the businessmen that although they were interested to see an offer, it was up to the administrators to sell the airline.
Mr Rivett noted that while Mr Harcourt was in Beirut, he met the Australian Trade Commissioner "who was aghast that Mr Hamm's genuine attempt to invest up to $US3 billion into Australia were being ignored. A report to the minister will be on his desk by the end of the week".
Mr Rivett indicated to The Age that he knew little about Wimco-Erica, but he believed the cash certificates were credible. He did not know where Wimco-Erica was registered, but suggested it might be registered in several countries.
In 1994, Wimco-Erica raised a mention in The Nonproliferation Review, a journal published by the Centre for Nonproliferation Studies at the Monterey Institute of International Studies. The journal features policy debates and analysis about weapons of mass destruction.
The Review noted that Wimco-Erica in early 1994 apparently obtained a guarantee from the Reconstruction and Development Bank of Latvia to the value of $US4.5 billion to buy 32.9kilograms of osmium-187.
The journal noted: "In recent years, Latvia has become a conduit country between the former Soviet Union and the West in the illegal trade of radioactive materials."
Osmium-187 is a dense and expensive metal used for making pen nibs and light filaments. It has a long radioactive life and is used to determine the age of rocks.
Wimco-Erica also drew a mention in United Nations Sanctions Management: A Case Study of the Iraq Sanctions Committee 1990-1994 (Transnational Publishers Inc, NY) by Munich academic Paul Conlon.
The study indicated Wimco-Erica was a small group behind colossal barter deals - swapping Russian oil, say, for Cuban sugar.
In 1993, Wimco-Erica gained the apparent backing of the Finnish mission to the UN as it tried to land another mega-deal. At the time, Wimco-Erica wanted to sell the UN or Iraqi Government - it didn't seem to matter which - three million tonnes of sugar, packed in 50-kilogram jute bags, deliverable over the next year.
The sugar was valued at $US786 million - but for the UN, a special price of $US750 million. The UN (or the Iraqi Government, if the UN would sanction a deal with Iraq) had to supply a letter of credit from a "top 50 World Prime Bank".
As Dr Conlon noted, the sugar deal was huge - enough to satisfy Iraq's demand for six years - and a sugar trade association "identified the sugar ... as most certainly being of Cuban origin". Cuba's trade was severely limited by a US-imposed economic embargo.
Dr Conlon found that the chairman of the sanctions committee convinced the Finnish Government to withdraw its apparent support for Wimco-Erica, and scotched the plan in 24hours.
Mr Rivett this week refused to divulge the name of the bank on the cash certificates in Beirut, but lambasted Ansett's administrators for ignoring Mr Hamm's proposal.
Asked if he believed Mr Hamm or Wimco-Erica had enough credibility and expertise to run an airline, Mr Rivett said without a hint of irony: "The question of management and credibility is an issue, but he (Mr Hamm) said he would employ the best (management) in the world - and isn't that what Air New Zealand did?"
Guest
Posts: n/a
When will you Aussies get your heads out of the sand about Ansett (RIP) - it was not a "great" airline, it was inefficient, poorly managed, staff were overpaid, (especially pilots) and had an archaic perating culture. It was NOT ANZ's preferred entry to Australian operations, it was the route forced on ANZ by unscrupulous and dishonest Australian politicians - note, the NZ Govt continues to honour the agreement re domestic operations for NZ/Aust carriers which is STILL not honoured by the Aust Govt - no surprise there I guess - AND the ANZ Ansett purchase was hamstrung by all sorts of (now published) union driven/vote keeping limitations preventing effective efficiencies/work practices/operating policies and procedures. On the up-side, thanks for taking Jensen back, with our sympathy!!
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Syd
Posts: 256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Getting a bit testy are we. Everybody knows Ansett problems were Management and Ownership related but guess what, AirNZ were the owners and managers during the last few years - the worst years. It's well documented that AirNZ were a mill stone around NewsCorps neck, when they finally took over after not having done due diligence and payed too much ( their own admission) the spiral tightened. Reference you flying domestically in Australia - well, that will never happen in our life-times now! I dont think you people fully appreciate the strengh of the anomosity held towards AirNZ by Australians. You are thought of as Benedict Arnolds, never to be trusted again. Why does the world need AirNZ anyway? Both Qantas and United both fly to, from and out of NZ. If you took out of the equation the number of Australian passengers you bludge out of the system you would be nothing. Why doesn't New Zealand stand on its own two feet? You have reneged on your obligation to regional defence, your obligation to a fully owned subsidary and you even want to combine our stockmarkets. You had your chance in 1901 to become a part of Australia and you blew it! Go away, we dont want or respect you. You cant even play cricket well. Will your team ever be able to bowl ours out this series? I believe the latest dance craze over there now is Rain Dancing!
[ 24 November 2001: Message edited by: Boeing Belly ]
[ 24 November 2001: Message edited by: Boeing Belly ]
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
nzer
Perhaps we (A-NZ) will have to agree to disagree on this mess. But your agruments will always be flawed. YES Ansett was in a bad (very bad) state BEFORE ANZ took 100% ownership. So why did they take that last 50%? Can you answer that? You guys say that you "had no or little idea" of the grave problems at Ansett when you aquired all of it. So what is worse, that you bought a dog, or that you didn't know you were buying a dog!!!! I wouldn't invest 5cents in something I didn't know about, but you twits invested half of NZs wealth in it!
And this while a cashed up SIA was willing to take the other half, how sad...now ANZ is state owned, with no hope for the future. Ansett would have (obviously) flourised, but then again, so would have ANZ. I can't even imagine how hard you idiots must be kicking yourselves right now. As far as Ansett is concerned, while we admit our huge problems which fermented over a decade, we had a good buyer (SIA) which ANZ and only ANZ vetoed and therefore our destruction is ALL YOUR FAULT.
Oh well, at least we have new buyers beating at our doors, unlike you. Enjoy government owenership kids, I bet Helen is negotiating in the US or France on your next big purchase. Not.
Perhaps we (A-NZ) will have to agree to disagree on this mess. But your agruments will always be flawed. YES Ansett was in a bad (very bad) state BEFORE ANZ took 100% ownership. So why did they take that last 50%? Can you answer that? You guys say that you "had no or little idea" of the grave problems at Ansett when you aquired all of it. So what is worse, that you bought a dog, or that you didn't know you were buying a dog!!!! I wouldn't invest 5cents in something I didn't know about, but you twits invested half of NZs wealth in it!
And this while a cashed up SIA was willing to take the other half, how sad...now ANZ is state owned, with no hope for the future. Ansett would have (obviously) flourised, but then again, so would have ANZ. I can't even imagine how hard you idiots must be kicking yourselves right now. As far as Ansett is concerned, while we admit our huge problems which fermented over a decade, we had a good buyer (SIA) which ANZ and only ANZ vetoed and therefore our destruction is ALL YOUR FAULT.
Oh well, at least we have new buyers beating at our doors, unlike you. Enjoy government owenership kids, I bet Helen is negotiating in the US or France on your next big purchase. Not.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Sydney
Posts: 288
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well Nzer,
can you explain why you bought the other half of AN if this was the case?
As mentioned elsewhere,it is not prudent to compare the wages of a developing nation ,such as yours,to those of Australia.Admittedly some jobs will move offshore to NZ,just as they did in the sixties to developing nations such as the Phillipines etc.
Coup de grace getting TJ back,thanks.Refer the other thread "why do airlines take cadets at all".
can you explain why you bought the other half of AN if this was the case?
As mentioned elsewhere,it is not prudent to compare the wages of a developing nation ,such as yours,to those of Australia.Admittedly some jobs will move offshore to NZ,just as they did in the sixties to developing nations such as the Phillipines etc.
Coup de grace getting TJ back,thanks.Refer the other thread "why do airlines take cadets at all".
Moderate, Modest & Mild.
Interesting that nzer should point out the grossly inflated salaries that AN was obviously UNABLE to afford.
An article in "The Press" (while I was there on hols in October) stated that Ansett Australia 737 pilots were paid about $53,000 MORE p.a. than an Air New Zealand 737 driver. (For anyone interested in doing a search, from memory it was a week-end edition carrying a supplement called "A dingo stole my airline"). Obviously not the pilots "fault", as salaries are set by management!
An article in "The Press" (while I was there on hols in October) stated that Ansett Australia 737 pilots were paid about $53,000 MORE p.a. than an Air New Zealand 737 driver. (For anyone interested in doing a search, from memory it was a week-end edition carrying a supplement called "A dingo stole my airline"). Obviously not the pilots "fault", as salaries are set by management!
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah the ineviable screams of IT WASN"T MY FAULT. Works if you are a 3 year old but it doesn't jell if you are supposedly rational profit maximising business people. A lot of years of financial neglect and ineffective management put Ansett were it is and Air NZ were there as share holders for 5 years so as always ignorance is no defence. Fascinating that Kaptin Taliban comes in for a fanatic Over inflated salaries tirade. Surprise Surprise. I believe that the QN guys are on the same rates as the AN guys were on so what gives there? Better Management , for sure just look at the share price. I believe even Virgin BLues figures for differences in seat costs were 1 cent per seat due to staff costs, anyway it matters nought. Ansett was too bloated and ineffectual with a management that was unwilling to do anything about it and shareholders whose only strategy was lets get the government (a left wing one at that!) to change the rules so Singapore can invest in us. HELLO what was plan B ? See plan A of course AMAZING and they got a bonus for that ! As for allowing AIr NZ to fly domestically and QN to fly in NZ and the whole history of things. Well someone was getting the good end of the deal and it wasn't the Australian airlines. Typical bull**** economics which sound good but don't actually work.
As for TJ I don't think Mr Fox will cop his crap for too long as he has been doing some research on TJ and the Nazi defence of "I was only following orders" won't save him.
As for TJ I don't think Mr Fox will cop his crap for too long as he has been doing some research on TJ and the Nazi defence of "I was only following orders" won't save him.
Evertonian
Thread Starter
Oooops! Didn't intend to start a war with NZ, but...hey, they can't defend themselves anymore!! LETS GET 'EM!!! 
I enjoyed listening to a conference call with TJ right at the end of AN. He was asked who he was loyal to, or worked for (can't exactly remember) An emphatic Ansett was the response & then some gibberish about kiwis, blah, blah blah...I had to laugh.
So, is it true that the ANZ 767's are being fitted with sidewinders now?? 
I enjoyed listening to a conference call with TJ right at the end of AN. He was asked who he was loyal to, or worked for (can't exactly remember) An emphatic Ansett was the response & then some gibberish about kiwis, blah, blah blah...I had to laugh.
So, is it true that the ANZ 767's are being fitted with sidewinders now??
Guest
Posts: n/a
******.... Now we have upset the Kiwis again...... 
NATIONAL NEWS
SUNDAY, 25 NOVEMBER 2001
N A T I O N A L N E W S S T O R Y
******! The Aussies have done it again
25 November 2001
By AMIE RICHARDSON
Not content with claiming Kiwi icons such as Phar Lap and Neil Finn, the Australians have struck again - over one of our best-loved television ads.
The new Toyota "******" ad was filmed and produced across the Tasman.
Saatchi & Saatchi writer Howard Greive, who was on the original "******" production team with John Plimmer and John Fisher, said Toyota Australia approached the advertising company for a second advert.
The result - with a faster, more urban feel - was filmed over three days in Sydney using mostly Australian actors. The expletive is used five times - by a bricklayer, a woman, a baby, the driver of the Toyota and a dog.
Greive said the ad was appropriate for New Zealand and Australia and the concept was never created strictly for New Zealand. New Zealand had not lost an icon, he said.
"The reality is that in New Zealand we have a hell of a lot of Australian ads so it's hardly a breakthrough. At the end of the day it's a Toyota ad and it incorporates all the characteristics Toyota represents."
Despite its popularity, the first ad went before the Advertising Standards Authority in 1999 after complaints that "******" was still a swear word. Irate farmers in South Australia also wanted the ad banned.
Greive was not concerned about causing offence. "I'm sure it will upset people. But then there are others who will just laugh."
He said while the new ad was structured differently - as a story rather than a series of unrelated gags - there was nothing that could beat the first time the word "******" was used on television.
This ad, like the last, would not screen before 8.30pm.
Toyota New Zealand did not feel its original concept had been lost to the Australians.
Marketing manager Debbie Pattullo said if people wanted to see it as a lost Kiwi icon they would, but it was appropriate to Australians and New Zealanders.
Pattullo said part of the ad's success was its controversy and ability to generate debate.
Victoria University head of marketing and international business Peter Thirkell said his research had found it was important not to offend any of the target audience, even if it was a small number.
More than 100 people complained to the Advertising Standards Authority about the first ad. All complaints were dismissed.
NATIONAL NEWS
SUNDAY, 25 NOVEMBER 2001
N A T I O N A L N E W S S T O R Y
******! The Aussies have done it again
25 November 2001
By AMIE RICHARDSON
Not content with claiming Kiwi icons such as Phar Lap and Neil Finn, the Australians have struck again - over one of our best-loved television ads.
The new Toyota "******" ad was filmed and produced across the Tasman.
Saatchi & Saatchi writer Howard Greive, who was on the original "******" production team with John Plimmer and John Fisher, said Toyota Australia approached the advertising company for a second advert.
The result - with a faster, more urban feel - was filmed over three days in Sydney using mostly Australian actors. The expletive is used five times - by a bricklayer, a woman, a baby, the driver of the Toyota and a dog.
Greive said the ad was appropriate for New Zealand and Australia and the concept was never created strictly for New Zealand. New Zealand had not lost an icon, he said.
"The reality is that in New Zealand we have a hell of a lot of Australian ads so it's hardly a breakthrough. At the end of the day it's a Toyota ad and it incorporates all the characteristics Toyota represents."
Despite its popularity, the first ad went before the Advertising Standards Authority in 1999 after complaints that "******" was still a swear word. Irate farmers in South Australia also wanted the ad banned.
Greive was not concerned about causing offence. "I'm sure it will upset people. But then there are others who will just laugh."
He said while the new ad was structured differently - as a story rather than a series of unrelated gags - there was nothing that could beat the first time the word "******" was used on television.
This ad, like the last, would not screen before 8.30pm.
Toyota New Zealand did not feel its original concept had been lost to the Australians.
Marketing manager Debbie Pattullo said if people wanted to see it as a lost Kiwi icon they would, but it was appropriate to Australians and New Zealanders.
Pattullo said part of the ad's success was its controversy and ability to generate debate.
Victoria University head of marketing and international business Peter Thirkell said his research had found it was important not to offend any of the target audience, even if it was a small number.
More than 100 people complained to the Advertising Standards Authority about the first ad. All complaints were dismissed.
Guest
Posts: n/a
OOOOPS....... Sorry about that. 
Apparently a word that is in the NZ newspaper today, and in their online news, also used on Australian and NZ radio and TV, is too much for PPRuNe....
Anyone not familiar with the ads, it is REGGUB spelt backwards...
Apparently a word that is in the NZ newspaper today, and in their online news, also used on Australian and NZ radio and TV, is too much for PPRuNe....
Anyone not familiar with the ads, it is REGGUB spelt backwards...
