I’m not on the ground in Sweden so I don’t know the full details here, but if the full extent of what Tom is telling me here is what he says it is, then there’s something rotten in Denmark Sweden.
In the blue corner you have Saab, struggling to stay afloat and snubbed by the Swedish government so far. They have a lean operation and new models in the pipeline that’ll include a new 9-5, a new 9-4x, the 9-3x just around the corner and a facelift to the Saab 9-3 in the near-medium term. They are working feverishly on hybrid drivetrains to bring to market as well.
In the red corner, you have a small electric car company from Norway that ran out of money last year. A company that power czars in Sweden are becoming interested in.
Think! make little electric city cars and they have a partnership with a group called Power Circle in Sweden. Power Circle, if I’m reading this correctly, is a consortium made up of Vattenfall (govt owned power co), the Swedish Energy Council, power company ABB, amongst others. Power Circle uses government funding to pursue energy innovation projects – and it seems they’ve got their eyes on Think – and Saab’s production facilities in Trollhattan.
This from e24 in Norway:
The Swedish TV channel SVT Västnytt sign Thursday night that there are “powerful forces” working to move the production of electric car Think from Aurskog to Sweden.
The channel says it is working now to make a Electric Cars-cluster in the cities Uddevalla and Trollhättan, where the Pininfarina and Saab have production today.
There are namely large production capacity in the Swedish automotive industry as a result of the financial crisis.
Svenske Power Circle, where among other Vattenfall and ABB are, should have tried to help to get started on the production of the Think in Aurskog, after this stopped because of pengemangel around Christmas.
This group, together with the company Innovatum should have thrown themselves on the idea of making electric cars.
- There is an industrial base and infrastructure that provide benefits to move production, “says managing director Tore Helmersson questions whether he envisions that the production moved from Norway and across the border.
But he points out that one does not exclude the other and thus add up to that Think can be a Swedish-Norwegian cooperation.
Kathinka von der Lippe at Think in Norway will not say anything about the rumors of Swedish television, but admits that they have a partnership with Power Circle in Sweden.
- We have sold a few cars there and have agreement on the delivery of more, “she says to the E24.
“Powerful forces”???
Surely not the Minister for Enterprise, the one who’s perpetually dissatisfied with Saab’s business plans and continually knocks back their requests for the loan guarantees they promised?
So….you refuse aid to an established company that’s part of the fabric of Swedish life for many and instead, propose to take their factories and build a car that’s failed in it’s home country and is impractical anywhere outside of a congested city, using a concept that will cost you many billions more to adapt to larger scale use.
Correct?
If those powerful forces are political forces, then I wouldn’t mind seeing some more reporters looking in to this.
Saab have a great past, a great workforce, and plans for some great cars in the future. They’ve done the hard yards, scaling back their workforce, lifting quality and making themselves cheaper to operate than other GM plants in Europe.
Volvo have a large range, more sales, but a much fatter operation that’s yet to undergo the real difficulties of become as lean as Saab. Yet Volvo received their state guarantees. Could it be because their factory is too big for the little Norwegian cars?
I hope more comes out about this soon. Perhaps this theory is wrong, but if it’s right then someone should tell the full story.
——
Thanks Tom!
Related posts:
That Opel blurb...
{ 26 comments }
well, that is how politics work. Sending more reporters on this will not gain enough momentum as Saab is already the black sheep of the big audience.
These mental processes typically cannot be stopped, and actually get more power once the little underdog group starts to kick ass.
Mass-population is generally apathic and numb. They say they distrust government, yet they buy every (government) story once they have found a common enemy (ie in this case Saab)
Hello,
Just a glance on the following news…
http://www.thelocal.se/17876/20090227/
We are talking about the Swedish favorite Maud’s brand, indeed?
Regards
Let’s hope the Swedish taxpayer wakes up
that news is about Volvo trucks, not Volvo from Ford
Enough with the conspiracy theory.
We want new owners for Saab, don’t we? Even though Saab has failed in it’s home market and also in all it’s markets. And we want the new owners to use billions to adapt Saabs concepts to larger scale use. Don’t we?
My points is that many of your arguments could also be used against a new owner investing in Saab.
I for one hope that both Think and Saab can survive the crisis. And maybe even work together with the Power Circle to develop innovative and exciting environmental friendly cars for the future!
I’m getting SO tired of this government slander. I’m not the biggest fan of our current government, but I know for sure that they didn’t cause this.
Do I want my government to invest my tax money in production of electrical vehicles or in production of executive sedans and SUV’s?
As soon as you put the “tax money” card on the table, Saab loses the game. No matter how you twist and turn things, Saab is less important than almost everyting else you can put tax money in.
But on the other hand, successfull electrical cars come down to one thing, and that is battery technology. So put the money there instead. And if the workers in Trollhättan need new jobs, they should feel free to use my tax money to pay for a free medical education. Nurses and doctors are needed, car builders are not. If you work for 20 years at company that loses this much money you are really stupid if you don’t have a plan B when the excrements hit the radiator.
Something else seems to be stinking… In Rüsselheim, to be more accurate: http://di.se/Avdelningar/Artikel.aspx?ArticleID=2009\02\27\326535§ionid=Ettan
The thing though Arild is that Think can be supported, but not by a swedish government refusing to help one of it´s carmanufacturers. Where is the Norwegian government in all of this?
I would like the Swedish government to help Saab to some extent and that is by granting them a loan garantee to be able to get things going again and Themselves get their Hybrids and electrocars out on the market. THEN Saab or and Volvo can start cooperation with think if nescessary. I don´t want the Swedish government to own swedish auto industry.. Why should they then invest billions in a Norwegian company?
And I don´t want a new owner to invest loads of billions into Saab. I want them to invest enough in the new products and in marketing so that Saab can make money and themselvs spend billions on their products.
Cheers/Tom
Terrible nationalistic? Well why not?
the same goes for Volvo Cars.
The government gets the slander they create for themselves. As far as I can tell from the mediareports right now, there is now indication why Volvo Cars would get government backing with guarantees from taxpayers money, and Saab not, based upon similar assumptions.
If the government is straight in their attitude, as they promote themselves “we do not want to produce cars” (Saab is not asking that [gvt shareholding] anyways, but so much for distorted retorics), then why the heck is the governement willing to spend taxpayer money on that OTHER car producer?
I repeat myself, the government is creating the type of slander themselves. If they talk with 2 tongues, it just creates a feeling of injustice, especially if they cannot explain in clear words what were the distinctive criteria to say yes to one, and no to the other. The explanation should be more specific than just ‘the business plan is not enough”. Motivate. Like an academic has to motivate they case he/she writes.
The Saab audience is a rather educated audience who just don’t let themselves fooled with.
I’ve read about the Think! plans in a Swedish newspaper the other day and found that very interesting – also from the point of understanding the Swedish government’s tactics about Saab.
From the government’s perspective it makes more sense to produce electric cars and wind-driven powerplant components than cars – especially in respect to Sweden’s plans to become independent from fossile energy.
What is more, Vattenfall and other exponents of the electric industry have a lot of influence – and they have probably done a lot of lobbying during the last months, as it was no secret that Saab was heading into trouble.
On the other hand I think that for Saab’s economic situation it could be a solution to set up a production line for Think! and use some more of the Trollhättan plant’s production capacity.
So if it helps Saab to get back to profitability, I’ll find it hard to reject the idea.
Pedro: yeap,question now is how the situation with the NG 9-5 will be?
GM May Give Up 50% of Opel Division to Secure European Bailout :
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601102&sid=a6XlW2CwGSq8&refer=uk
The red/green Norwegian government has refused to support Think with money. Other than that I tend to agree with Arild here, let’s try to see the possibilities. I tend to think that the effort of incorporating little Think in the so called Power Circle cluster in Trollhättan area might be a good thing to do. That might give a win-win situation for many of the involved, and please note that Think do not only produce small electric cars but also a technology that might be something that SAAB can benefit from. When SAAB finally is free from GM I guess they might need some new resources to their future hybrid cars, and perhaps Think can be one of the contributors?
All forces that can help SAAB should be welcomed here. I am not saying that Think will have that big impact on SAAB, but maybe they might be a new brick in the wall?
Long live SAAB!
Brgds from Olav in Norway
Always on the longest way home when driving my SAAB!
Saabista 63..
The problem is not using part of Saabs plant to produce Think cars. The problem is that Government garantees will not be given to Saab allthough they realy DO have a viable businessplan, Volvo wich is in a major loosing mode is getting one and now maybe Government funding is used to produce cars effectivly making the government carmanufacturers.
So if Saab do not survive then the government, ABB and som other parties have a hole lot of room to produce their own cars.. The goverment in cooperation with ABB.. What is wrong with helping Saab and suppliers a bit, get the money in return from Saab and a new owner, a chance for Saab to employ more workers and keep 20.000 at work.. or more?
That should be the solution.. And lend the money saying that Saab have to build a elictric version of the 9-3.. A safe car.
Saabista:
if the plans with THink means extra operation coverage in Trollhattan plant in order for Saab to get profitable, then no one can be against it. The problem (of our eotions here) would arise when the government is helping to kill Saab and let some investor/company take over the assembly plant for Think cars.
Future will tell the difference.
Jelger & Tompa,
I absolutely agree. This is an option fraught with danger for Saab’s future.
Tompa, I too want the Swedish Government to guarantee the EIB loan, and I wouldn’t mind if the Norwegian Government helped Think. I wouldn’t even mind if the Norwegian Government Pension Fund invested in Saab. And I agree with you that the Government shouldn’t be an active owner. But I think that companies owned by the state (e.g. Vattenfall) should conduct business the way they seem fit, and the Government should not meddle. If Vattenfall wants to use their competence in electricity to make Think a better company, then be my guest. Maybe the Swedes can make Think a huge success and make it Sweden’s third automaker.
I see no reason why Think and Saab can’t coexist.
what i gather of Vattenfalls recent adventures, is that the goverment doesn’t mind that state owned companies are spending billions of euro’s accross the border, but is not willing to back up bank credits for industries withing their own borders that have a clear and determined mission.
Who can guarantee that the billions that Vattenfall spends accross the border in other European countries will not backfire in the face of the Swedish taxpayer? Is the Swedish taxpayer aware of these constructions? Do they mind? and if they don’t, then why would the government suddenly decide to have such a tone in retorics about ‘not playing with taxpayer’s money’?
The risk for the taxpayer to end up with the bill is higher with Vattenfalls direct spendings, rather than with backing up bank-loans. Not counting the huge difference in money involved.
PS. I am not being judgmental here, I am just noting 2 different pathways of the government, and I can’t find (or see, because of ignorance) a reasonable explanation in the ordinary.
The tooling will be moved to Trolhättan, maybe? IDK why, but more and more I’m getting the feeling that this is a deliberate strategy as asset stripping without going through bankruptcy procedures could not be entirely legal. I’m waiting for a ‘new GM’ to form from the ashes of GME, GMAP and whatever cash positive assets there are in North America…
Seeing as the government say they do not want to own SAAB, it is reasonable to believe that they probably do not want to interfere too much with the companies they already own. So Vattenfall presumably is free to do almost anything it wants..?
that may be true in its core philosphy, yet it is with financial responsibility for the government (read taxpayer) as one and only shareholder.
how is that for playing with (indirectly) taxpayer money?
I think the issue with the Swedish Govt might be as simple as they don’t like the fact that Saab’s parent is not willing to invest in the company, so why should they?
Sorta like the US Govt’s response to Cerberus when they were not willing to give more bucks to their own company Chrysler, so why should the US Govt?
You might not agree with their logic, but I don’t think that is a conspiracy.
Martin, I don’t know if you missed the sign on the way in, but this is a Saab enthusiasts website.
If what you’re after is an all-electric car world, then you’re in the wrong place.
And the thought that you government could be eyeing off the production capability of one company to reallocate it’s capacity for another company of it’s preference should be a little disturbing. It sets a worrying precedent if you ask me.
Perhaps the thought that they’d support investment in a failed company from overseas over an investment in a 60 year old Swedish tradition should be a little of concern, too.
In the end, though, this is a Saab website. I want to see Saab live on, not have their facilities stripped to produce stupid little electric roller skates that I have no interest in or need for. If this story is accurate, then it’s a worry.
You might be jumping ahead, people. I read in an article (which I can’t find now, duh!) that Saab is interested in cooperating with Think. This might just be a strategy of Saab’s to move production & most importantly the research to Trollhättan. Saab needs the technology for the future and Think needs the backing.
That’s a scenario I could deal with, David.
Imagine a situation where Saab comes out of this time actually making another vehicle as well! Think, by Saab. I can almost see the ads now, using Aretha Franklin’s “Think” as the soundtrack.
“Freedom…..”
My initial objection concerns Saab being choked off so that some arrangement that’s preferable to the government – who don’t want to own a car company, remember – can be pursued by state-owned agencies. It would be the height of hypocrisy.
But a Saab/Think thing could work if they support it. Maybe PowerCircle are one of the eight interested parties looking at Saab.
That’s the Swedish government for you. It doesn’t act in the best interest of the people – it acts in the best interest of those people in the government or related to them that own certain companies, like Vattenfall. That’s why Maud cracks me up when she’s defending her decision not to help Saab by saying that clearly she couldn’t use taxpayers money for that kind of risky business. But she says it so often that it’s lost all meaning. Only the dumb would still believe in her. Of course, helping out banks is fine. Helping out Volvo is fine (no risk at all!). Helping out SAS is fine (when where they last profitable?). If the majority of the Moderate Party had business connections with Saab then Saab would’ve already gotten SEK15 billion from that car fund.
Comments on this entry are closed.