|
| If everything else stayed the same and it was just branding I doubt if it would have made any difference. For starters the overall Deutz-Allis dealer network was in shambles by 1990. Also the Allis-Chalmers company continued to exist as small remnant of the original company in the oil/gas equipment and services industry and continued to own the Allis-Chalmers trademarks so AGCO couldn’t just use the Allis-Chalmers name.
From a product standpoint the only significant A-C product left in the line that had customer loyalty was the Gleaner combine. The tractors by then were a White transmission & rearend with a Deutz engine, so nothing A-C related that loyal customers would be familiar with and want to hang onto. Maybe if they had retained and continued to refine and improve the A-C 8000 series tractor more customers would have stuck with them.
When the Deutz-Allis executives conducted the leveraged buyout from KHD in 1990 the company sales were ~$200 million. The company was an empty shell of the former A-C ag division and barely maintaining an existence. So much so that Robert Ratliff was able to get the company purchased for ~$89 million.
While it’s easy to armchair quarterback all the things that AGCO may have done wrong, the fact they even exist at all relative to where they started in 1990 is amazing to me, let alone be a strong worldwide competitor. I’m not a big AGCO equipment owner or anything, I’ve just appreciated what Robert Ratliff was able to accomplish with very limited resources compared to the other competitors. | |
|
What if .... AGCO had kept the Allis Chalmers Brand going ?
