SaabsUnited.com

As Swade asked with this post, if the deal with Spyker was nearly done, what was the problem? What was so important that it killed the deal?
As many of you (and I) suspected, it was the potential drain of Saab (and GM) intellectual property to the Russian partners in the Spyker deal. This according to the fine people over at Expressen.se.
The English translation (via Google Translation):

December 19, 2009 Spykers Russian owner got GM to halt
According to the sources of reports were still a few minor issues would be sorted out before the contracts could be signed.
Yesterday, Spyker Cars CEO Victor Muller, Saab’s managing director Jan-Ake Jonsson and General Motors negotiators Scott Mackie in Stockholm, ready to complete the Saab deal over the weekend. But a quarter to seven on Friday morning called GM’s European Director Nick Reilly to Jan-Ake Jonsson with news that the deal be scrapped.
The reasons are two, according to report:
• GM discouraged by Spykers Russian partner. GM’s technology might go to Russia.
• GM’s new management wanted to show decisiveness.

I really cannot blame GM for not selling to Russian or Chinese owners for fear of loss of intellectual property. These two economies seem built upon copies of Western products. However, I can fault them for wasting time with Spyker knowing that was a huge issue.
Nyet, indeed.
————-
On the other hand, Pontus Braunerhjelm opines in Dagens Nyheter that the future will be bright for Trollhattan and former Saab employees should Saab indeed close.

In the short term, of course, its closure will mean a difficult transition for Trollhattan. Looking further ahead, while creating opportunities for the emergence of an advanced and export-oriented service industry that builds on the solid technology expertise in Saab in which potential customers are located both in China and in developed countries. Similarly, should the considerable skills of the employees could come other manufacturing industries – which largely exists in western Sweden – a part, not least the Volvo. Saab’s closure may thus be the start of a process of “creative destruction” which both mean a new phase in the automotive industry’s organization, and may give rise to new activities.

I say wholeheartedly that is welcome news. Mr. Braunerhjelm calls for speedy investment and deft employment of the engineering expertise embodied in the Saab workforce.
——————–
It appears that Saab’s new partner in old Saabs, BAIC, is very excited about their prize. They are targeting 1.2 million vehicles in 2010, and they are already looking for help with “new energy” cars. Get ‘em tiger! The old 9-5 will be a winner in China. Rock solid and smooth.

I haven’t found a link for it yet, but I’ve received a tip about a story, either in the print edition or coming online in Dutch newspaper, De Telegraaf shortly.
Apparently it quotes a GM Europe source saying that doors are still open for a sale to the right buyer with the right offer, or words to that effect.
“The door is open” according to the press tip I’ve received.
it’ll be interesting to see what comes forth, but I haven’t seen it yet.

According to this report from Motor Trend, there have been emergency meetings between General Motors and the Swedish government this weekend to save Saab from the corporate wrecking ball.
Apparently this report was sourced from the offices of GM Europe since the post specifically mentions that a representative from that organization is in attendance.
Thanks to Ruud and Autoblog.
More details to come.

To fill the gaps while Swade’s on vacation, I’ve compiled a short list of reading for you that may add to our conversation here at SaabUnited. It’s certainly been a long, cold Saturday here in Nashville already (rain and 35 deg F/2 deg C), and I can’t imagine how cold and how long the Saturday has been in Trollhattan. The emptiness must be immense. My heart goes out to those people.
—————-
First, an excellent write-up over at The Independent entitled Were Saab and GM doomed to fail? I like what Mr. Wilkins has put into words there.
This quote will give you a flavor of what he’s on about:

It’s certainly true that the models produced by Saab under GM’s ownership were, to varying degrees, disappointing, failing either to satisfy established fans of the marque or to win over large numbers of new customers. It’s easy too, to blame that on the need for Saabs to borrow parts and platforms from GM’s European mass-market Vauxhall/Opel operation.

But this is far too simple an explanation.

.
I think that he has some very valid points. I’m interested to know your take on it as well.
——————-
I also absolutely love this send-up of General Motors and their management style with respect to “failed” brands like Saab, Pontiac, Saturn, etc. in the Examiner written by Jim Cherry.
Check this scathing treatment of the GM management:

The bean counters failed the Saab brand. Just as they failed with GM as a whole. GM’s cult of MBA’s are the Charles Manson Family of auto execs, killing brands with wanton stupidity.

As former GM superstar executive John Delorean said, “A man trained and skilled only in financial control, who has no direct operational experience, simply lacks the understanding necessary to run the business.”

I’m hard pressed to find much wisdom in Mr. DeLorean’s legacy, but that quote is spot on. Well done, Mr. Cherry!
——————-
According to this release from Reuters, Sweden’s own Prime Minister was “unsurprised by the collapse of GM’s efforts to sell Saab“.
The short statement indicates that Mr. Reinfeldt feels that GM never made Saab a viable business and that made splitting it off to run alone was always going to be difficult. He also says that “hope and nostalgia had sometimes clouded Swedish views on the predicament of one of their most beloved carmakers“, and that “the company [Saab Automobile] was bleeding.”
Worth a read.
——————-
Finally, from Saab’s own press outlet, Saab Newsroom, we have this pithy comment:

Sad. We believed in this.

No more comments from Saab for now. We have to wait for directions from GM.

I’m not sure if I’m in a state of denial, but I don’t think so.
I don’t believe that Saab is dead yet, but you’ll all be the first to know when I do.
——
Got an email from a major US news publication this morning, asking for an Op-Ed piece. It’s very hard to keep it down to 800 words, but I’m trying.
——
I drove the Monte for four hours today. What a car. They can’t kill it, surely?
Here’s the view we’re enjoying right now, though it doesn’t do much to ease the confusion and the pain.

——
“B.A.” has provided a little comic relief, making up this sticker for his Saab 9-3:

——
To the news……
Maud Olofsson blames GM and reiterates that the Swedish government will not take up ownership of Saab.
Whilst it’s been suggested, no-one’s really asking for government ownership. But GM are still open to offers and the government CAN help in a big way with the potential buyers that remain interested in Saab. They are out there.
Mrs Olofsson, you can blame GM all you want. They deserve it by the bucketfull. But you and your people deserve a large share of it too.
Now’s the time to make amends.
——
Bard Eker from Koenigsegg Group:

“We can only hope that something good comes out of it. Not least for the workers working on Saab, for it is them I am most worried about now, “says Eker…..
….Saab was never structured as a subsidiary, it was something you bought and swallowed into the great GM-body. It is clear that it is very difficult to pull out. You can take a lung of a human body, but not all blood vessels. There was a contributory factor in that it took longer for us also. They had not done the necessary [preparation] before they went into dialogue with a potential buyer…..
…..What we did wrong was that we were open about the business plan. At first no one believed it, but as they began to believe in us, the guys started to get greedy. GM would be better paid for the parts and the Chinese would have more money. Then began greed to become so dominant that we could not take more, “says Eker told Aftenposten.

There’s one particular part that’s important here, about people not having belief in the Koenigsegg Group. This wasn’t just GM, I believe that the government agencies involved had the same lax approach. Those ‘timing issues’ Koenigsegg quoted when they pulled out were 100% true.
——
Some lamentations:
The New York Times.

Saab became a statement of its own. The American competition had floaty rides and Japanese cars were tight on space. By contrast, a Saab had taut steering, requiring drivers to actively guide the car as it powered through ice and snow.

The Boston Herald

“To see brands like Saab go out of business is really sad,” said Ray Ciccolo, who owns Norwood Saab and Watertown’s Charles River Saab

Courant.com

Since buying her first car in 1970, Theda Marinelli has never owned anything but a Saab. She tells her friends: “When I die, put me in my Saab. Take me to the compactor, make it small enough, and bury me in my Saab.” Now that Saab itself has died, Marinelli is in mourning.

——
The hardest words to hear this weekend have come from Jan-Ake Jonsson:

GM has now decided to liquidate the business and it would mean that in future we will not build Saab cars here.

Saddest. News. Ever.
Let’s hope a solution can be found.