48 thoughts on “Let Saab Go!

  1. Yes.. we at SaabWay Club started some days ago.. I wrote you an e-mail.. haven’t you recieved it?


    Hello there..

    Yesterday one of our members (Ludovica Tombolini) at SaabWay posted a message on the FaceBook GM’s wall… now.. many other Saabists are following the suggestion posted on Saab Cars’s FB wall from another our member (Vincenzo Mancaniello)..


    Just to know…. may be we can think about starting a new campaign as Save Saab… calling it this time Let Saab Go…. ?

    Have a Nice Week-end,


    Luca (Seghezzi)

    • I have started posting all over Twitter since most are at this moment are only using FB to get the message out. We need to also use Twitter. Let @GM know how you feel and get #letsaabgo trending.

  2. I just tryed to follow you it again but…

    Sorry, we were unable to deliver your message to the following address.

    Remote host said: 550 5.7.1 pAGEIDrh030302 This message does not comply with required standards. [BODY]

  3. Yes, it is totally unreasonable that GM isn’t willing to violate it’s existing agreements in China and go against the interest of it’s own employees and shareholders. The nerve. They need to forget about all that and submit instead to Facebook posts by Saabsunited readers.

    I always thought Saab drivers were a bit smarter than average, but this stuff makes me wonder. Most of the comments here seem to come from the Sarah Palin School of “I”m A Victim” rationality.

    • Consider it an incentive for GM to find a way to make a deal work. Obviously if allowing Saab to be 100% Chinese-owned would be monumentally damaging to GM’s interests then they shouldn’t do it. But none of us have behind-the-scenes knowledge of the cost/benefit to GM.

      They should just know that Saab will not die quietly like Olds or Pontiac. We are more loyal and vocal.

  4. Keith….what exactly are GM’s interests in China? Don’t you think that it’s just a question of time an money if Pang Da and Youngman would only be interested to get GM’s so-called technology? Saab is and never will be a competitor for GM. GM’s interest and as well the interest of their shareholders and employees should be to let Saab go and go on selling parts and components, yes even a whole car (9-4X) to Saab. That is what they should do

  5. GM has existing agreements with a Chinese manufacturer. Think that the latest Panga Da / Youngman / Saab deal would violate that agreement? Victor actually seemed to suspect or know that a couple weeks ago based on his comments about what would fly.

    And you have decided what GM interests “should be”, based on no real knowledge of what they actually are or what their existing agreements say.

    GM sold Saab last year. It isn’t their fault Saab doesn’t work as an independent entity. Cheering Saab on is great, so cheer Saab on to come up with an agreement that can work for all parties. You can presume that China is a pretty important part of GM’s future, so don’t expect them to do something against their interests.

    • Bingo.

      Saab would be happy to sell 50,000 cars next year. GM sold 550,000 Buicks last year — just in China. There’s a lot at stake for GM, which has said it’s more than willing to “let Saab go” but it will keep the technology that it — not Saab — owns.

      But I will say….this “Let Saab Go” campaign is very well executed and effective. GM’s FB page is plastered with great images of Saabs, and there are some passionate statements about how “GM won’t let Saab be sold because it wants to keep Saab technology for itself.” No joke. A grass-roots misinformation effort has to be extremely effective for it to be able to reverse basic truths like that. That’s a sure sign of a well-crafted campaign…and I say that admiringly.

    • I agree with you about the importance of the Chinese market for GM, but why didn’t they decline the deal already in June? Do you really think that it would make a difference if Saab is 100% Chinese or just 38- or whatever-%. I assume – and yes this is my opinion- that this is about money. GM sold Saab – and now – again my opinion – they try to get a sort of a refill. They were waiting until the money was put on the table – and now they want their share.
      For 20 years Saab has been a part of GM. GM is co-responsible for the downfall of Saab and should have at least a moral obligation and even more a financial interest in the survival of Saab as we all know that GM doesn’t stand for Great Moral.

      • You’re completely right that it’s about money…it’s about the money that GM stands to lose if it allows a competing company to use its own technology against it in the most lucrative market in the world.

        The plan for the Chinese was likely to wait until the last possible moment and buy Saab for a song. No other viable buyers presented themselves. The delay was less about GM and more on the shoulders of the NDRC which needed to approve any deal. Then throw in the EIC involvement and there were a lot of factors that were not totally influenced by GM.

        But to say that “GM was responsible for the downfall of Saab” is not quite true. Saab was never very healthy and had some bad business habits that enabled it to be bought out by a larger company that essentially let it wither on the vine. Saab died of neglect, both internal and external.

    • “GM sold Saab last year”

      – My foot! They sold Saab for 70 M€ but kept all the IP, 320M$ of preference shares and… a strong ownership covenant.

      So… Tell me, teach everything you want about rules but I will not call that buy out a clean sale. They did NOT sell Saab in fact and that is a fact over the proper form of the legal ownership of Saab.

      What they want to make us believe is that Saab has never been profitable for 20 years (GM ownership), that they were forced to sell Saab but Spyker/SWAN did not better, and that finally Saab should die. All that story a la GM is such a lie !

  6. Hmmm! “Let Saab Go!” has the wrong connotations for me. When I saw the headline I wondered it someone was suggesting that Saab was allowed to go. ;(

    “Release Saab” or “Set Saab Free” sound a bit more positive to me!

    @Keith does have a point!

    • Gotta say….seeing all those Saab pics on the General’s page is pretty impressive!

      This is like the chihuahua nipping at a massive pit bull. You know the chihuahua doesn’t stand a chance against the bigger dog, but you root for him anyway.

      Nip up!

  7. I think we should be careful with our comments towards GM. As far as I can see they have every right to block a deal if they think it violates the agreements under which they sold Saab to Spyker, I won’t comment on the morality because this just depends which side you on. However, it doesn’t hurt to show GM that the huge Saab fan base still exists. So let’s inundate their facebook wall with our babies!

    • Which is why I mentioned making an IP deal.
      The idea is not to annoy GM but to make them aware that the good old Saab fan base is still there.

  8. Oh..

    I frankly don’t care what it makes anybody look like or if there is an underlying truth somewhere.
    I still need GM to get to work with SWAN/SAAB/PangDa/Youngman,, whomever..tho get things working and find a solution. Not just say no

    In the meantime I did not post the “Let Saab Go” slogan at GM’s Facebook Page, but links to the Top Gear and Autonews articles about the subject.

    • I agree Khris, you were wise in doing so. GM is not the bad guy here. A lot of comments from SaabUnited are anti-GM. GM holds the cards and to be honest, pissing them off with stupid comments on their website is not helpful. Here is a better idea, thank them for their support in the past and hope they will make a deal that will allow Saab to continue in the future. Don’t think for a second the anti-GM position of many Saabers has not hurt sales in the U.S. over the last two years. Let me be more diect. My wife gets a check every month from GM. At the same time I write a check every month to pay for the 9-7X. In light of my knowledge of the misplaced anger I see here, it does not encourage me to buy another Saab in the future.

      Before you write that condescending note to the GM site, remember this, GM never moved the factory out of Trollhatten, never build a Saab out of Sweden, except a few DH’s in Finland, until asked to by Saab this last year in the 9-4x. Remember that, if this deal gets done, 3-7 years down the road. The Chinese govt, will do anything, write any deal, approve any sale or purchase to benefit it’s citizens. The Swedish govt. could stop this torture of Saab tomorrow with a stroke of a pen. But somehow the bad guys are the Americans? Not your out of touch government? They are the bad guys. Victor was right about that.

      • Chris,
        I do understand what you mean, and believe when I say that not many here think that the Swedgov has been able the whole year to stop it.
        I’m not controlling what people are actually writing on GM’s facebook site, but I can’t imagine what is so offensive in saying that Saab should survive, and for that GM will have to move a little bit.

        Maybe Let Saab go! is not the best sentence, maybe we should write You need Saab!, (look at the new XTS), but the main point is that for many people, Saab is important, and GM should know about it.

        BTW, the 9-2X was build in Japan, the 9-7X in the US, the unborn 9-6 was planned to be build in Japan, the 9-3 Convertible was firstly build in Finland and then in Austria, the current 9-3 was planned to be build in Germany but the Saab guys made so many changes to the platform, that GM had to allow them to build it in THN, and the current 9-5 was also planned to be build in Germany. Now tell me that GM never moved production out of Sweden.

        • Yes Red, I would use something a little more diplomatic. I still think GM will deal, and for the same real as last time, they don’t want to blood on their hands.
          As far as those minor Saab production models you mentioned, such as the 9-7, 9-2. They were produced in such low numbers as to almost be forgotten. The vast majority of Saabs were build in Trollhatten, so my comment is more right than wrong.
          The Swedist govt could correct this problem overnight if they choose to do so, and none would blame them if they did, not outside of Sweden, at least.

  9. No news on the front page tonight about Antonov? I’m surprised at that. Turns out that maybe GM & EIB might have been right to be worried about him. Because tonight the Lithuanian authorities have seized control of his bank for financial mis-management and issues concerning the availability of loans.

    Availability of loans? I wonder who might possibly have borrowed money from him? Tenaci Capital maybe?

  10. I don’t mean to rain on anyone’s parade but surely we all saw this coming and shouldn’t VM have realised GM wouldn’t allow ‘GM IP’ to freely fall into the hands of another Chinese company. If we blame anyone it needs to be pointed at VM, IMO. 🙁

    • I am quite sure that a 100% sale was not they idea VM had.
      I assume that it was something that came from somewhere else.
      Somehow I think they old 54% deal would have been much easier for GM to accept.
      But I may be wrong.

    • VM came out and said that he knew this was a distinct possibility. A lot of this corporate “positioning” seems to be a shot in the dark approach or like tossing crap; it may or may not stick to the wall right?

      Like with the notion of Saab/Swan or whatever corporate entity (a new on with China too), can just go ahead and build cars without the GM imprimatur, they can but how would that fly with patents, international trade agreements and the like. Lets just tie the bones of Saab up in a package for the lawyers to run amok with? They even suggested that the 9-4 could be built without GM? So Sweden and China are going to invade Mexico? How much would it cost to duplicate a production facility in China (or where ever), modify each platform to accept ersatz or odd parts to get around the GM parts line?

      Is GM really going to listen to 100 people who are not shareholders, 1,000 who are not shareholders? Even if GM comes to terms with “Saab” in whatever form it will be a decision based on what is good for GM and the future of GM; strictly by the numbers.

      • rallyho, you’ve got to think though that no Saab would not be the best for GM. GM makes money off of Saab when Saab is building and buying cars and parts from GM. I don’t pretend to think that Saab is a make it or break for GM, but easy money is easy money and I don’t think GM is unaware of this. I do agree though that GM will do what is best for GM and there are a lot of variables to that.

          • which would even strengthen my point because did I not read somewhere that without Saab, GM would be responsible for warranties for certain models? I could be wrong and this could be misinformation, there is a lot of that out there.

    • Hey Zippy,
      I think VM knew right away that GM was going to have issues with the 100% Chinese deal and even stated so. Remember before saying that blame should be pointed his way that the 100% deal was not one he wanted and was kind of forced to accept it. I don’t think it’s a big secret that the reorganization process wanted to transfer ownership from VM to the Chinese. I personally don’t even think it was the Chinese original plan. Now who looks silly for going this direction or who is to blame? In my mind it would be whomever decided to screw with the original deal. Pretty sure too as to where that idea came from. Hope you’re enjoying your new location Zippy, all the best.

  11. Great idea, just put my Aeroplane on GM’s site, just like the other SAAB fans, so GM now have some good looking cars gracing their website. Keep them coming, guys.

    Long live SAAB!

  12. Not directly related to this post, but nevertheless very important for consideration, also to understand this year’s developments with respect to ownership and actors behavior in the case of Saab: According to AWP,
    Bank Snoras today was nationalized on request of the Lithuanian central bank. The Lituanian government decided so, as the central bank humbled the board of the bank in the morning. The bank was mainly owned by the Russian financier Vladimir Antonov and by the Lituanian Raimondas Baranauskas, and apparently has become insolvent. Central bank governor Vitas Vasiliauskas told journalists, that an inspection had revealed potentially criminal behavior on the asset side of the bank’s balance sheet. After taking into possession the bank assets, the bank will be divided into a bad bank (with the bad assets) and a new healthy bank, according to Lithuanian finance minister Ingrida Simonyte. The bank’s normal operations will be closed for the rest of the week, and a US specialiced firm was put into charge to restructure the portfolio.

    That is quite a bomb.The financial difficulties and apparent insolvency may explain several things: That the EIB (with some contacts in Lithuania as well) was strictly opposed to let VA come in as a shareholder, that VA completely disappeared from the Saab scene some months ago, that Swan was out of money as its main financier was in difficulties, and that VM was ready to sign a sale for a price where he has to take quite a big loss.
    This is nothing to be happy or laugh about. Many banks in the world are at the brink of bankruptcy, as the financial crisis in Europe and to a lesser degree in the US is taking its toll. What is peculiar, is that criminal activity is presumed. But not on the liability side, in other words concerning the sources of the shareholders, more with respect to the asset side or concerning some investments.
    There will be more news in future.

    • We’re going to steer clear of this story, as there’s not much specificity yet as to Antonov’s involvement or what the charges actually are. It’s worth keeping an eye on but since he’s not part of any deal with Saab going forward, there isn’t as much Saab interest here as there could have been.

  13. all our comments have been deleted 🙁 Looks like GM facebook team does’n t wanna have us there any longer 🙂
    Anyways it was a great campaign. Thanks to all that started it!

  14. and back they are…they obviously changed their feed view…plus they appologize to a guy called Joe:

    General Motors It’s OK Joe, thanks for flagging for us.
    vor 3 Minuten · Gefällt mir

Comments are closed.