There was a really poor article on DI.se over the weekend, which featured in comments but didn't get any oxygen here on the front page.
DI.se and their sister news service in print really seem to find some joy in sticking the boot into Saab, looking to turn almost anything into a story that doesn't show them in a negative light.
I'd be surprised if they didn't have hidden fart-o-meters in certain pairs of executive pants just so they paint even the slightest details in a poor light.
This latest effort features a conversation with Joran Hagglund. It doesn't always make for easy reading, but you've got to see it in the context of the election that's coming up and the attacks being rained down on the Swedish government by the opposition. We're now in political mode so everything has to be viewed through that particular prism.
There's a few people who probably deserve a right of reply to this and they're welcome to it here, though they might choose bigger media to do so.
My thanks to the semi-anonymous goofball who translated this from the print edition into comments earlier.
------
State secretary Jöran Hägglund has been hailed as the saviour of Saab.
In a candid DI interview, he reveals his wish for Chinese help in the relaunch of Saab, and is unable to conceal his disappointment at the end result.
He condemns Saab's reconstruction process, criticizes Koenigsegg's lies and calls the latest bidding round a joke with unserious players.
Now he demands that Spyker owner Victor Muller accounts for the financiers behind the purchase.
"Pity that it didn't work out with the Chinese"
Jöran Hägglund, state secretary for Minister of Industry Maud Olofsson, has during the past year been the government's coordinator of the work with the automotive crisis. The situation turned urgent in February last year, when Saab was put into reconstruction and lawyer Guy Lofalk was set to lead the work of finding a new owner for the company.
"It was a strange process to have some sort of public bidding, and it brought both high and low in for a look. It was like scrambling through the Yellow Pages for automotive companies and inviting them in. And then they still ended up with three. One could wonder why those particular three and no others were chosen. Both Beijing Auto (the BAIC industrial group which was later to buy used Saab tools from GM, editor's note) and Geely were interested."
Was it a pity that it didn't work out with the Chinese?
"Considering that China is the big car market now, and will be for the foreseeable future, it was a pity. It's no longer the most important to be biggest in the American market, instead it's about being biggest on the Chinese one. The prerequisite for succeeding there is to be in among the leading, bigger players, and in that context Beijing Auto and Geely are interesting leads."
And a more interesting lead than Koenigsegg?
"Yes, I think so. Koenigsegg and Spyker have in common that enthusiasts are behind them, and that doesn't have to be bad, but I think that with the backing that they (BAIC and Geely) have from the Chinese state and Chinese banks, that would be a more long-term foundation."
How did you react to GM's declaration of intent to sell Saab to Koenigsegg?
"We were a bit surprised. We met a large number of interested parties, and Koenigsegg was a group that had come together rather quickly. None of the people in Koenigsegg had much experience in the car industry, or in negotiations. After they had bailed out, when we had a follow-up meeting with them, they told us that far into the negotiations, they had missed some important components. So in spite of all the deals, they didn't have a whole car."
How were you affected by the question marks about the financing and the role of American Mark Bishop?
"That was negative. We had a big controversy with the Koenigsegg gang along the way. They gave us a false picture of why Mark Bishop bailed out. We figured it out another way, confronted them and explained that if they were to keep talking to us, they should be sincere. That made us lose speed. They didn't give truthful answers to direct questions. We don't ask that they should tell the whole truth, but you shouldn't lie in the face of a negotiating partner."
Business man with a dubious background
The row concerned that Mark Bishop, a shy business man with a dubious background, was claimed to have left Koenigsegg as an owner and main financier of the Saab bid, but was later, in early fall, found to still be in the game, since he was trying to sell off his Koenigsegg shares.
But Jöran Hägglund stresses that Christian von Koenigsegg wasn't guilty of the lies, and he doesn't put the whole blame for the breakdown in the negotiations at the end of November, when Koenigsegg withdrew, on the Ängelholm sports car maker.
"Saab wasn't a complete company. Saab was basically a cost centre within GM, where costs for research and overhead were dumped. To really find that which was Saab has actually been going on until November, December. So it wasn't all that easy for Koenigsegg to buy something which wasn't a finished company."
What have GM said about the Koenigsegg negotiations now afterwards?
"GM themselves say that they were 'miles, miles away' from being completed. There were a great many contracts and details that took time, since Augie Fabela (American financier with a background in Russian telecom company Vimpelcom) who ran the negotiations didn't have any experience from the automotive business.
After Koenigsegg withdrew, a new process was started with old and new bidders. How do you view that today?
"It was a big joke. We did a background check on one guy who had really been into us. It turned out his company didn't exist, and he had gone personally bankrupt in October. When we confronted him, he stated that that was true, but that he had forgotten to mention it."
Were there any of the interested parties that you took to in the December process?
Especially Beijing Auto. What I know is that Beijing Auto are still very interested in a cooperation with Saab, and I think that can turn out very well. We've said so to the Saab management and to Spyker."
How did you regard GM's decision to wind down Saab?
"I fully respected it, but it became ambiguous when in the same breath, they said that they would look at any bid that came up. I think that from December until now, they crassly started to calculate what a wind-down would cost, adjusted the price to that and wanted to come to a quick conclusion."
Meticulous vetting of Muller
In the third bidding process for Saab, Spyker were back in, but so too were various consortia such as Luxembourg-based Genii Capital, with Swedish spokesperson Lars Carlström, and a Swedish group led by former vice Prime Minister Jan Nygren. However, that a former political heavyweight, who had also been vice CEO of the Saab defence group, got involved in the process didn't create any pressure on the Industry Department.
"Not other than that we've spent considerable time listening to him and his gang and other interested parties, since we felt that we should at least hear what they had to show for themselves."
How did Nygren and the other bidders compare to Spyker?
"There's no comparison. When the bids were to be submitted to GM on January 7, Spyker had a stack of deals and highlighted changes. The Nygren gang had a two-page document, as did Genii and Carlström. Genii's press release was longer than the bid."
Was there any serious financing behind it?
"No."
Were you alarmed by Muller?
"All the things that turned up, we knew about. We had vetted him meticulously and confronted him. People can have dealings with tax authorities, that happens to Swedish business leaders too, but you have to put it into proportion."
Spyker have a history of great hopes and weak sales. How did you view that?
"People must be allowed to do business, good or bad. But of course we noted that it would have been better if there had been a big strong industrial player. But there wasn't one, and then you have to decide on the ones that are available."
You have handed the question about financiers of the Saab deal on to Victor Muller, but he hasn't answered. How do you feel about that?
"There could be reasons for that, but I think it's up to him to disclose them."
Do you feel that he should give an answer?
"Yes, I do."
Are you aware of the financiers?
"We have been given an accounting, yes."
------
Swade here.....
That right there was the most important question of the bunch. The Swedish government were entitled to demand answers, and they received them and approved them. Same with GM.
You don't need to tell your neighbor what you do for a living, but if you go for a loan, you have to tell your bank manager.
If Victor Muller is in a position where he has to disclose those arrangements, then I'm quite sure he will. If they're private as the investors wish to stay anonymous, then that's their business and as long as they're legally entitled to anonymity, any demands from the press are just posturing. Nothing more.
Back to the article.....
------
Can you see any reasons why he doesn't publicly reveal them?
"Not really. Unless there are agreements that mean it's too soon for various interested parties to come forward. Only he can answer that. He's the only one who has that picture."
Are you sure that the Russian Antonov family are out of the picture?
"They are out as part owners."
Are they out as lenders?
"He'll have to account for that himself. We can't do the puzzle through all links backwards, what all the constructions look like, but it has been important to us and to GM that they aren't in as part owners."
Political mudslinging
The Social Democrats have pointed out that the then Prime Minister Göran Persson traveled to Detroit and GM the last time Saab was threatened, and have claimed that Sweden has been represented at too low a level with a state secretary. In connection with Jöran Hägglund's latest trip to Detroit, critics scoffed that he didn't get to meet the top GM management. Out of respect for the negotiations, Jöran Hägglund kept quiet and didn't reveal that he actually did meet GM boss Ed Whitacre.
"I think there has been a great deal of political mudslinging in Sweden. It has also been argued that the Germans sent Angela Merkel, and I can only note that that wasn't particularly successful. Our conclusion has been that it's at least as important to have established contacts, a trust and that the opposite party knows what it is you want. We've developed that with GM without it having been the Prime Minister who made the calls."
Have GM asked for higher-level representation from Sweden?
"No."
Do you believe in a happy ending for Volvo as well, in the Geely negotiations?
"It's too soon to tell. Everything can happen in a negotiation. But if they go all the way with Geely, I think it can turn out very well. I'm strengthened in that opinion after having been to China and met representatives of the government."
He should take JÅJ as an example, there is a guy that keeps firm no matter what is going on.
Can't abide yapping politicians and I can't abide DI and their smear campaign against Saab in particular and Swedish industry in general.
DI makes News of the World or the Sun in the UK look like high-brow publications.
I'm amazed that he can reveal this kind of detail from the bids. He is not very respectful in his comments about the other bidders.
Don't gov representatives sign NDA's like the other guys in the deals?
But as always this is the place for news and events.... even if we don't like the news or the people who make it...
I am confident that GM and all other parties investigated all of the deal fully and that everything will be OK.
To my surprise, I find myself having to defend DI a bit. The introduction to the article is a bit tacky and doesn't really portray the contents fairly, I feel. But other than that, it's a good interview, with relevant questions. If there's any "campaign against Saab" here, then it's by Hägglund. But the brunt of his criticism is really aimed at Koenigsegg and, to some extent, Genii. OK, he would have preferred a bigger player rather than Spyker, but as we know, he's far from alone in that view. It's just up to Spyker and Saab to prove that smaller doesn't have to mean weaker.
It seems that there was one part in the Koenigsegg group that Hägglund did not like. But CvK was OK.
Lots of abbreviations ;-)
However it is coming out ugly things in "big business" and it seems that GM was not only guilty for total confusion in this deal. They all should be a shame how they were playing with destiny of people living from Saab. I start to appriciate VM more and more (just hope he is not another CvK).
One more thing I really would like to know who was this guy without penny trying to buy Saab. If he insist on VM to reveal investors than he also should say openly about those things.
Having helped arrange this deal, you would expect the government to be supportive of it in public. The comments about the other bidders are poor form, but the comments which reflect directly on Saab and Spyker violate the government's obligation to help Swedish industry and labor succeed.
The government's highest priority is not that Swedish industry and jobs be preserved, but that someone else be blamed if it all goes wrong.
If the U.S. government behaved like this, it would get cut to ribbons in the press, and deservedly so.
Apart from that, I find the interview very interesting. I don't think it's negative. It shows that Spyker is serious, while Koenigsegg maybe weren't. So, having heard Jöran reporting, we can be sure that the Spyker bid IS sound. That's very good. Let's keep fingers crossed that the final steps go through and the SAAB will win back territory.
ALL other govts with car manufacturing rushed to bolster their respective companies and The Swedish govt did nothing in the beginning and very little later.
This interview sheds light on that.
Primeminister should order to have him fired, this is just to much. One in his position should keep his/her mouth shut. Way out of line now, wonder what he was thinking.
Just hope this will blow away, and so with the current government that have has such an disrespectful attitude towards Saab.
Plus: show one Russian tycoon without any mafia relations?
Sweden is a Social Democracy. Taxes are high to make things work. It's their system...so why promote a strategy that would chase 3500 good paying union jobs out? Chances are you would not replace them with the same wage, which means less tax revenue for the government.
From a business sense what he is saying makes sense. However, it does not really make sense when one considers that a Swedish politician should look out for the Swedish first. Quite honestly, he sounds like my fellow American businessmen that promote "Free Trade" as a virtue. Sell to the highest bidder, no matter what the consequences for the country. Corporation over Country. Seems a bit off to me.
The current article is one of the more cautious ones, though. During the past year there have been many poorly informed articles on Di.se. Some of these articles were even obviously misleading and based on false information. Even sales numbers were reported in a wrong way to the unfavour of Saab. When the overwhelming majority of comments were positive to Saab, they summed up them in an article which again concluded with the negative voices.
Di.se seems to have one overarching goal: To put negativity on Saab, the sale process and the buyers. It is really bad journalism, uninformed and unbalanced. We should not allow this to happen without an appropriate reaction.
The Saab Spyker deal is not yet closed and Hagglund is shooting his mouth off already. I think that non disclosure agreements apply to all parties concerned and even when they are not then all parties have a moral duty to keep their mouths shut. Of course, with politics all morality goes out of the window. I wouldn't be surprised if the guy is pushing his own political agenda (elections?) here.
Although a sale to BAIC would have been good for the Saab name it would have been detrimental to the Saab brand. BAIC have been stating over and over again that they were not interested in the Trollhattan plant. They would have taken the tooling and the Saab name and moved everything to China. So, where Mr. Hagglund is getting the idea from that this would have been preferable? Again, political agenda.
Imho, the only thing that Mr. Hagglund has proven is that you don't want him at the table when performing delicate and sensitive negotiations. If there is any sense left in the Swedish government they should get rid of him asap.
The only positive that has come out of this interview is that Spyker seems to have been the only serious bidder and that Victor Muller has worked like crazy to iron out all the little details of this deal. Victor to line up the financing and JaJ leading the company seems like a viable construction.
'nuff said.
One may ask why GM chose Koenigsegg Group instead of the Chinese. Hägglund is correct about the Chinese market being the future cash cow for the car industry. So did GM chose Koenigsegg to protect their cash cow?
And I also agree about Victor Muller should tell us who is bringing the money to the party. If not, we may risk that the question will linger and come back and haunt Saab for months to come. Just remember all the crying about "show us the money" that happened to Koenigsegg.
But more important, I get the impression from the interview that when the last round of bids were handed in last month, Saab was sold to the best and most serious bidders.
And I hope Saab and Spyker start a closer and more comprehensive cooperation with BAIC as Hägglund suggests.
Politicians should not be included in business deals.
? GM and the swedish government knows fact, so that should be it. No need for swedish politicians and the rest of the world to raise the issue. Could it be that some of them are backed by some other car manufacturing companies? Is somebody out there afraid of the competition to be, once the Saab cars start hitting the market again?
"SAAB IS HERE TO STAY"
curiosity killed the cat !!!
If Mr. Muller has spent his money to create the Tenaci Capital BV company to protect the identities of his donors, he will know why, and it is ok for me, because otherwise SAAB would be history today.
I would really be bummed if one of the financial backers pulled out because of a sensationalist press. If they want to stay private, let them do so. It is disingenuous of some to praise VM for his efforts on one hand for saving SAAB and then question his integrity and credibility on the other hand - especially in the name of a good story.
Let the news be the news. Don't let the press make the news.
Maybe I'm wrong.
1. GM may not have been initially serious selling a long-term viable SAAB and chose perculiar partners and perhaps chased away stronger buyers OR the Swedish gov't chased away stronger buyers by not fully supporting the sale of SAAB. "One could wonder why those particular three and no others were chosen."
2. The Swedish Government really, REALLY wanted to sell SAAB to the Chinese. "...Beijing Auto and Geely are interesting leads." And a more interesting lead than Koenigsegg?
"Yes, I think so."
3. GM might have been trying to kill SAAB via another company where GM wouldn't get saddled with the problems of closing a company. "We were a bit surprised. ...Koenigsegg was a group that had come together rather quickly. None of the people in Koenigsegg had much experience in the car industry, or in negotiations. ...they had missed some important components. So in spite of all the deals, they didn't have a whole car.""
4. GM likely did not put much effort into separating SAAB into a saleable asset and the 'SAAB is a money loser' schtick is the product of a company exploiting multi-government (tax) laws. "Saab wasn't a complete company. Saab was basically a cost centre within GM, where costs for research and overhead were dumped.... So it wasn't all that easy for Koenigsegg to buy something which wasn't a finished company."
This interview is a treasure trove. I am astonished to see a gov't official be quoted like this, especially when he is publicly trashing a Swedish Company (K-segg) even after stating that the sales negotiations were difficult because there was insufficient effort to separate SAAB from GM (one wonders if Ford marketed Volvo as a stand-alone company to bidders). In the US you would see 'annonymous high level gov't official had doubts.'
I am also very curious about the new bidding being a 'joke' with a bidder with a ficticious company and recent bankrutpcy. How did that bidder not get rejected b/f he was able to talk to the gov't or was the Swedish gov't rounding up bidders for GM?
I have to wonder, however, is this a CYA by Hagglund that demonstrates cluelessness in his job or a CYA that is trying to deomonstrate how Mickey Mouse the sale was orchestrated by the captians of industry or a bit of both or something else?
However, after reading this I am much reassured about Sypker owning SAAB. Thanks for the translation.
With all the recent positive and negative publicity surrounding SAAB name, a certain fanboy attitude is kicking in on this and other forums. Of course what Hagglund says disagrees with this mentality, but I think he's just trying to be objective.
What we here fail to understand is that the Swedish government has very little real reasons to fight for SAAB-auto future. Automotive SAAB is no longer 'heavy industry' the same way as military SAAB is. It's not clear what auto-SAAB is, at all. Even Koenigsegg didn't know it at first. Once they did get to know, they bailed out.
Cmon, guys. There are no SAAB engines anymore, the tools are all sold to China. The body for the new 9-5 is stamped in Germany, the engine made in Australia. The modern SAAB is 99% dependent on GM's good will to provide parts. It is unclear to which extent the factory in Trollhattan is able to produce anything once they break off the GM lifeline. Design and research centers - it's again unclear what and when they produce, how advanced their technology is. My guess is they are 10 years behind major (german) players, but again it's all classified within GM system.
As much as I wish Victor Muller success, I think he has taken on a very risky endeavor. A truly independent SAAB automotive is not gonna happen in the next couple of years, and in todays world, it might never happen at all. Hagglund sees it better than we do, that's all the article is about.
If I may get off topic for a moment. An increasing number of Governments across the world see the need for a more transparent business world. This is due to more and more money being hidden in tax havens. And tax havens do not only hurt the industrialized countries, it also hurts undeveloped countries. I believe this and transfer pricing will be hot topics the coming years.
still, I agree with Garrett, a truly fascinating look at the process. shows just how lucky saab is to make it out the way they are.
Look at this picture and notice that the car might på of the 70 ies styling and the turn signals are brand new (NOS)
http://www.geting.se/viewimage.php?image=218923-DSC09595.JPG
SU takes the lead in production!
That is a thing I most apreciate from the scandinavian societies.
Maybe some people are wanting to see this as Hagglund attacking SAAB. However; I don't see it that way. Hagglund points out the problems in the sale from GM themselves to the lack of industrial muscle interested in the brand.
Hagglund would rather of had a Chinese owner, something that even JÅJ wished for in an interview early in 2009. Many here are too quick to assume that SAAB production would shift to China, without considering that Trollhättan could be used for European production for Chinese cars.
A question raised by Hagglund was why Koenigsegg was chosen? There were stronger bidders at the time and the reason could lead to GM knowing that the deal would eventually fall apart so they could wind the company down. Maybe what GM didn't count on was Spyker revising their bid to address every problem first highlighted by their initial bid and the Swedish government stepping in at the last moment and forcing the EIB loan in rapid time. Hagglund although being very frank about the sale I see him given credit where is due to Spyker for being very prepared.
Granted; Hagglund doesn't paint a good picture of the roller-coaster ride we've been on for the past 15 months but his comments were not critical of SAAB but of other parties.
I'm curious as it could point to how Geeley treat Volvo and how BAIC would have treated Saab. It's my understanding that Geeley intends to leave Volvo to it's own devices, presumably as a source of technology for Chinese made cars but still producing cars in Sweden for Western markets. Given what's been posted before, though, it doesn't sound like BAIC would have done the same, which would have been a bit dumb. Proud or not, the Chinese manufacturers haven't made a particularly good stab at designing cars themselves (look at China Brilliance's motors) - NAC's new MG seems to be reasonably class competitive ... designed in Europe.
Of course, regardless of whether Volvo or MG have a European manufacturing base now, I'm sure the Chinese parent companies would not bat an eyelid at moving it all to China at a later date if they thought they could get away with selling Chinese-built Volvos. Shows the benefit of being master of your own destiny.
On one side:
* Don't rock the boat. The deal is done and we should be looking forward.
* We do not have all the information
* Hägglund's word was first transcribed by a journalist and then translated to English by a third-party. We are not getting the words straight from the horse's mouth (a co-worker told me a funny story today about a guy on a carriage who tried to dampen his fall with his hand after his horse suddenly stopped -- his hand ended up in a very damp and warm place)
On the other hand:
* Hägglund seems to be doing everything to cast a shadow of doubt over not only this deal, but Saab as a whole
* Yes, the Swedish government did (I can only hope) step up and helped this transaction, but after what seemed like an entire year of bad-mouthing Saab ("we should not throw good money after bad")
* It seems Hägglund now has switched sides in the question concerning Saab's profitability. Now we are told that Saab was deliberately taking the financial fall for GM's expenses (research and development). This is in stark contrast to his minister's words that Saab has only lost money. (I am actually not sure what to believe -- what is the official stance of the Swedish government in this question? I hear two totally different opinions from the same group of people. Maybe Hägglund and Maud should fight it out in the back room and come back to us later with the answer?)
I feel that Hägglund should have joined the celebration, smiled big, praised Victor (undeserved praise or not, he is currently a guy who controls thousands of jobs in Sweden and deserves some respect from Hägglund) and said that although there are challenges ahead, the future indeed has lots of potential for bright skies and plenty of cake for all.
Instead he joins the "russians are evil and businesses must make lots of money every year or else...!" crowd. (The russian mafia bit still confuses me... How can you commit crimes in country A, and be punished for those crimes in country B without undergoing a trial in either country?)
I guess Sweden is a country filled with employed people who do not have to worry about keeping or creating jobs. Which is a good thing, because I (a not very hairy Norwegian bloke) just bought an apartment not far from Trollhättan. Someone offer me a job now, please? :P (actually I am only half joking)
That is correct!
Sweden is in many ways like a backwards little village, where everyone expects to know everything that's going on.
Why? It should be sufficient if the parties to the deal are told. Assuming they can keep their traps shut, of course -which seems very hard for some of them.
VM is the man, if not... I don't want to think about it.
European brands establishing bridgeheads into the Chinese market will continue to grow, thus further marginalising small manufacturers like Saab.
Hopefully the BAIC deal will help Saab grow were it matters, allowing them ample room to develop future models.
As I understand it (from reading here), the 9-3 will see a new iteration next year. I guess the real fight starts then: Designing the 9-5 mark III.
With the new 9-5 it seems we have the most Saabish Saab in a very very long time. That car looks so much Saab in any angle and interior its almost silly how much Saab it is (besides maby the bulky front seats). It has a piece of all Saab models ever made in it -for those able to see it. If it also feels and performs like a Saab i have no experience of myself. But i hope the those who had a chance to feel and drive it is not TO biased by Saab love. What i was really about to say is that i think you are pretty silly saying its not a Saab if the engine is not molded and built out of old local technology from the 80's. And correct me if im wrong but i heard the stamping of the bodies will move to Trollhattan. If it wont i guess its only an issue for people like you. It is a whole new world out there. Some people dont se or understand that and most of them are at least 64 years old. I dont blame them for their reasoning about what once was, we all have a need of feeling comfortable.
He could say the same about any industry in Sweden, that if it was taken over by the Chinese then it would give a tremendous opportunity for growth.
If he was so keen for the Chinese to get SAAB why did not the Swedish government buy it and then sell it on the cheap to China?
I don't think Hagglund is being objective. For a start he's a politician and his number one objective would be to "cover his ass". for a second, how could he have possibly thought that selling Saab to the Chinese would have worked - as you point out Saab has no engine stock (although only the V6 comes from Australia by the way), where would they have got their engines from? Chinese engines would not provide anywhere near the refinement expected from a premium brand that Saab is being pitched as - certainly their engines will be a lot less refined than the units we currently use from GM. I also agree with another posters comments that it would be highly unlikely the Chinese would have kept any manufacturing in Sweden... so what would be the point? especially when you consider the local component manufacturers that rely on Saab and Volvo for their existence.
ok, rant over...
MG has just been out of the loop for too long now. they will have to create the trust in the market place all over again.
Maybe the Chinese will copy the Koreans and head hunt a serious quantity of European and American automotive engineers to bring in the knowledge
What i find interesting is that there where some offers that was stronger which GM refused? I also find it interesting, and good, that the chinese where interested and apparently still are. To develop a new car 50,000 sold per year is not enought. Doing it with the chinese who does not have any other to work with could be great. Those guys dont want to stop with the current volume so i would not worry about jobs moving away, and image whise having a european plant is not a bad thing, even thou most models are made in china.
Its now clear that the initial spyker bid was stopped due to the russian ownership and the money coming from crimes. I think he tells it like it is. They know he is no longer an owner, but imagine that he is still putting in some money. As a consumer i would not mind to know if the manufacturer is financed by criminals. I think the damage would be much smaller by going public (and it being old news) instead of allowing for all this speculation.
CJS
I haven't seen any substantiation of these claims! All I have seen are various suppositions.
Perhaps we should keep in mind that the very top brass in Russia are likely to be AT LEAST as bad as the worst Russian maffia boss -they just have bigger guns (or back some other maffia boss).
Then we can talk about China's impeccable human rights record.
I fully agree with your action and hope more people will follow and doing the same.
To be a Saab it must be "made in Sweden", not just assembled in Sweden.
As Basil pointed out their present and comming products are all made of a majority of GM parts,
or even worse, -just rebadged GM cars.
Saab has evolved into a "Customizing Company" for GM models, under their ownership.
They are now dead as a independant car manufacturer
and they're never gonna make it with just Pimped-up GM's.
Salesfigures shows it very clear, and their "new productline" are not gonna change that dramatically.
The new owner MUST bring them back to their roots, and develop real Saab models of their own.
Otherwise they are doomed !
I'm not gonna buy any GM car in disquise, so in the meantime I've put them "on hold".