Update: Deal completed and awaiting approval

December 3, 2011 in News


According to information available to TTELA, after long negotiations in Stockholm an ownership structure has now been found for Saab, hope is that it will be approved on all levels, even GM.

The structure has been signed by Victor Muller and is developed with the chinese partner Youngman. Exactly how the suggestion looks is unclear, but Youngman seems to have backed down from its previous desire to take a majority part in Saab. It is not unlikely that Youngmans part is now below 20% to agree to the terms set by General Motors.

In the deal, a third party, probably not chinese, is also included but this part is also a minority. It is however unclear if Pang Da still has any part in the new ownership role. The problem according to TTELA’s sources is that Pang Da has been the one pushing for a larger ownership role in Saab, larger than what GM would accept.

Pang Da has not been present at the negotiations in stockholm during these last few days. This new deal is likely Saabs only way of avoiding bankruptcy. The papers were sent over to GM yesterday and right now, the tension is high as to what the reaction might be in Detroit.

Source: ttela.se

84 responses to Update: Deal completed and awaiting approval

  1. Hopefully they will succeed!
    Do you have a link ?

  2. A little sun is comming op in Trollhättan! 😀

  3. finally good news …

  4. Had a dream :)

  5. Someone should send a pen to GM at Santa Claus ….

  6. Wow, this is the first time in the last few weeks I seriously feel things will come around to a positive outcome !!

    SAAB UP !

  7. Hope GM let SAAB go.

  8. Do you know if SWAN will be a part of new ownership structure?

  9. Lets hope this works.

    Saab needs to get back to making and distributing vehicles, a rebuilding it image and customer base. This drama never should have happened.

  10. I’m cautiously hopefull but without knowing the specifics I’m not taking the champagne off ice just yet. SWAN and Youngman have put a lot of work into restructuring “the deal” but all GM has to do is say No – which they seem all too happy to do – early and often.

    • My feelings exactly.

      Was GM represented at these Stockholm negotiations? I assume so. Now it goes to the higher-ups at GM in Detroit to make the final decision?

  11. Question: Is it still OK to bite one’s fingernails at the age of 46? So far I have bitten mine as far as my elbows…

    • Toenails ? if you can reach ’em, lol.

    • Do it…my hair’s fallen out, nails down to the quick, dog’s thinks that my legs have fallen off, wife thinks i have another women ( i wish), work colleagues think i’m the most miserable of git’s, you go ahead and eat your fingers if you want…..this is more nerve racking than getting married !!!

  12. hope it will run!
    if this works, vm has saved saab a second time and they should throw out mr. lofalk immediatly.
    he is the greatest problem for saab since many weeks and the present situation is his work!
    without vm saab would be closed since months.

  13. 2011 certainly was an “annus horribilis” for Saab/SWAN. Things can only look brighter 😀

  14. One thing is clear re GM – the new partnership cannot be majority Chinese – and the new 3rd entity must be substantial. IE – not another Spyker. If it is another Spyker this drama just returns in 1 year. Which means – no “North Street Capital”.

    Without substantial resources, Saab is not GM customer but rather a non-paying distraction (like it has been this year).

    And for those thinking GM will agree to own Saab again, that has truly zero chance of happening.

    I’m truly curious who the new 3rd party is, and hope it is an entity that really can help Saab into the future.

    • Blatant, but exactly what I’m thinking. Well put, Keith.

    • < …and the new 3rd entity must be substantial. IE – not another Spyker. If it is another Spyker this drama just returns
      < in 1 year

      Couldn't agree more… Any new player has to have some serious heft. If not, you're absolutely right, we're back at square one very quickly…

      Anything other than a big new concern and I pretty much lose faith…

    • I wouldn’t be that skeptical. VM almost made it … with virtually no cash.
      Of course it would be great if the third entity is fully loaded, but as of now, SAAB needs less than that.
      They just need a good CEO to get it back on the track after reconstruction, everything else is doable.

  15. I’m keeping my fingers crossed!

  16. There still remains a number of major points that require elucidation. Let’s keep an optimistically expectant air.

  17. Please General Motors, allow me to “put my hands up for Detroit”!

  18. I am just wondering if NDRC will be satisfied with th eproposal. I have always been thinking that the 100% takeover by the Chinese was an NDRC requirement. What will they say about Youngman owning 20% of SAAB. I am afraid the gave is not over yet, but I hope that I am wrong!

    • Before the whole topic of 100% Chinese ownership came up the approval process of the original MOU for the NDRC seemed to be going well and on schedule so I don’t think that was a NDRC requirement. But….the percentages of that original deal were more than 20% so it remains to be seen. It does seem, though, that the Chinese parties would have been consulting with the NDRC during the negotiation process.

  19. This is the best remedy for my hangover from a first Xmas function!

  20. I agree, I am convinced too the NDRC would have wanted it all. Now they may be reluctant when GM is satisfied. But it just may take some more diplomacy and back scratching for all involved. Its a state that Saab should never have had to face. In this case though, I’mbfor GM and its wanting past agreements to stand. They have the real tech behind te cars and have legitimate concerns. Ok GM please approve if all is on the table and in benefit for Saab and platforms you support!

  21. All GM has to do is say Yes or No, 50% chance.
    All NDRC has to do is say Yes or No, (50%x50%) 25% chance.
    All EIB has to say is Yes or No (50%x50%x50%) 12.5 % chance.
    All the suppliers need to say is Yes or No 6.25%

    Saab has undoubtedly a slim chance, so all Skeptics give it a rest.
    Saab has somewhere between 6.25 – 100% chance in being saved.

    • If you were to skew the data, then we know that GM has been working with Saab, etc., so there’s probably more of a chance than 50% from them. NDRC? All of the levels before the national NDRC approved the 54% deal, so I’m going to guess that that the chance of approval there is also above 50%. EIB? That’s a tough one. They didn’t want Antonov, so they’re going to be extremely cautious… I’d give them a less than 50% chance… I’m pretty sure that all of the suppliers will be happy to continue, though. I’ve forgotten the name, but the entire board of Euro suppliers (or something like that) say that they support Saab. I’m feeling good about their decision.

      All in all, I’d raise that 6.25% to at least 25%, but then again, that may just be my optimism speaking. I just want Saab to make it!

    • I think it’s pretty useless to come up with these percentages, when we have no idea what is going on behind the scenes. Why not just wait and see?

    • If it is “only” EIB that says no then the Swedish government should replace EIB.
      The gov takes the risk and EIB takes the interest. Sweden can easily get god terms on a loan today and could actually make money by charging Saab a little higher percentage. This would also mean that Saab would pay much less interest.
      I have heard numbers of up to 10% interest to EIB since the loan is considered hight risk. Funny that with Swedish government actually taking the risk.

  22. Unless under condition that after a few years the Chinese will take 100% ownership or vast majority ownership, NDRC will not approve this deal, because there are already too many car manufactures in China now, they are trying hard to get the number smaller, YM is a tiny company which then will be taken up by another Chinese car maker if YM fails to acquire majority ownership of Saab.

  23. Let us pray.

  24. SAIC?
    It has become quite obvious to me that GM wants Saab to survive otherwise they would have pulled the plug ages ago. What, in all honesty, would GM have gained from killing Saab?

    Go Saab.

  25. Does anyone think the third ( new) party could be BMW?

    • Not likely, but not completely unlikely either. It would definitely be interesting if they were the third party.

    • I agree — BMW was my first thought/guess. Who else would be big enough to calm GM’s insecurities on IP ‘transfer’? But at this point we’re all just guessing…. nothing wrong with hoping, tho.

  26. “Many of the great achievements of the world were accomplished by tired and discouraged men who kept on working.”

  27. I can’t comment too much on all of this, except what I alluded to earlier in the week. All I’ll say is it’s curious to see TTela and DI come at the story from two different angles, each which reveals their sources to be different. TTela of course has a much more accurate description from the deal table, whereas DI inserts Lofalk again into the mix and leaves out all the juicy details. Pretty funny to read.

    Patience and crossed fingers, people.

    • It can’t be fun having to read all these articles through Google Translate, it can mess everything up very easily too! Or do you read/speak a bit Swedish, Jeff?

    • Was the whole project checked with the stakeholders or is it another short-lived smoke grenade? GM and the NDRC must be biggest risks, EIB should not be, if the third party is not an obvious problem case

    • Jeff, are you aware of a timeline from the parties involved as to when we may hear an answer?

      • They’ll respond when they respond. From what I’ve seen there’s no “respectfully, respond within 24 hours” clause. We know it won’t take extremely long, because there’s a threat of bankruptcy should salaries not be paid. Of course anything more than 24 hours feels like eternity to most here.

  28. maybe we should “attack” the GM facebook wall again 😉

    • I’d like to point out what Swade wrote back in December 2009:

      I can’t emphasise this enough: make your message passionate, but polite. A passionate message that clearly states a point of view will be read and considered. An angry message will only find its way into the trash.

      • There’s nothing wrong with anger as long as we’re intellectually honest and don’t commit slander. Frankly, I’m amazed at the restraint that’s been shown. Honesty is the best policy and I refuse to treat General Motors with kid gloves. I am their customer and I don’t like how I’m being treated.

        • There is a time for everything.
          I still think that keeping anger in check is a very good idea.

          Anger brews anger and what is gained by that?

    • Already done! Twice!

  29. Some spanish “Saabers” we received some info about Porsche Spain, asking for Economic figures to various Saab Delaers here. As you may remember Saab was distributed by Porsche until GM take full control of the brand.


    • Now that would simply be too perfect. I wouldn’t mind having my Saab’s borrowed bits coming from that stable.

  30. Just about everything crossed now. Let’s hope that the final ‘denoument’ is what we’re all looking for :)

  31. Fingers crossed, I just hope this deal can help Saab UK out of trouble.

  32. Some of the comments mentioned BMW and Porsche but as far as I understand the GM limit for take-over exists for “a car producer” not only “a Chinese car producer”. Even though I suspect that BMW and Porsche can gain anything from acquiring SAAB I still think the limit exists for them as well.
    I think that a financial company will take over the 50-60% of the company and keep it for a while until GM change their minds and then sell the shares to the Chinese for considerably more money (if the plan works out and SAAB is back on their feet).

  33. The sinplest solution to my simpleton mind would be for SweGov to take a holding stake and allow Saab to slowly buy it back. However, from everthing we’ve ever heard this seems to be a non-starter. Can’t wait to find out what the real deal is.

    • That would warm my Swedish heart. I would actually not mind to place some of my own money (pension funds in my own company) in shares of a Swedish company that takes a stake in Saab. Not a huge amount perhaps 10 000 – 20 000 euro perhaps.

      If a Swedish company was formed with the intention to inject money into Saab I would be happy to take a token share of it. I’m not a blind and fanatic Saaber and I would only do this if the funding is 100% signed up for and the whole owner structure seems sound.

      It would be nice if Sweden would OWN a piece of Saab again.

    • Agree, I’m waiting to hear something.

      Griffin Up.

  34. I don’t think it’s right for taxpayers to bail out or fund big companies, even Saab. That is fascist, socialist, not capitalism. Capitalism allows companies to fail and young entrepreneurs to take their place. What about the small company that employs 20 people and they run into problems?. Does the Government bail them out? They have dependent families too. That wouldn’t be right if only BIG companies are funded by taxpayers. Saab should make it on their own as much as possible.

    • That part has been skewed a little lately.
      If you owe enough money noone can afford you to fail.
      If you only own a little they will take their losses and move on.
      Doesn’t really matter what political system is in place

    • Saab is not that big. It is certainly not one of the “too big to fails.”

      There is no such thing is true capitalism anyway. Once a company gets to the size that it can influence politics, then true capitalism goes out the window. And unfortunately, many industries need large companies to have the financial strength to do big projects. Once they are that big, then they are big enough to have political clout.

      Today’s economy has to be more than local shopkeepers. True capitalism is a myth. So what you need is regulation of the large companies that can influence politics. But then if they are big enough to influence politics they can avoid regulation. Catch 22.

      • That’s the kind of thinking that got Europe(and the US) in the rotten mess they’re in. Anyone wants a Euro. ? They’ve bled the remnants of capitalism until it can no longer sustain the welfare state. Socialist and fascist control of companies eventually leads to collapse. To big to fail? That’s a lie. Many big companies have failed and the world still goes on. There are many big companies that started off as a shopkeeper, so you definitely don’t make sense ‘david’. Get a life!

        • Anyone wants a US dollar?

          The only talented capitalists left in this world is the Communist state of China, who has the ability to control all their companies and compete succesfully in the free market outside of China.

          • Re; compete succesfully in the free market outside of China.

            That’s because no one else can compete with them…..

            • Yup.

              The basis of capitalism. Supply and demand.
              Apparantly they supply what we demand at the price we want to pay
              Maybe it was time for the consumer to take a close look at what they demand

    • But Sweden is a socialist country. Saab and their employees have paid a lot of taxes over the years. If Saab goes belly up, the tax revenue turns into welfare expenditures (and funding lots of startups in the hope that not all of them will go belly up before long).

      And this particular industry is competing in a field where all the other countries that host their competitors are actively helping theirs, be it France, Germany or USA.

      • As Winston Churchill once said 60yrs ago. ” As a country becomes more Socialist, they will need more and more government police to enforce their rules.” Move to China and have a good time writing and speaking .

  35. I suspect this one was done the way it should have been to start…with a legal advisor from GM on the phone or available to ensure the terms would be acceptable to GM. To think they would have tried it any other way before is bizzare. GM is HUGLEY important to SAAB right now. Perhaps in 5 years it will be different, but for now, no GM = no SAAB.

  36. We have a deal. Yet are clueless about who some of the parties might be, much less the terms of the deal.

    And we are supposed to get excited about this? And we are supposed to tell GM to approve it? I’m holding out till I hear more. Much more.

  37. No one’s forcing you to get excited, David, but I for sure am excited about the fact that they still are trying — and if the deal is made in a way that makes VM confident enough to sign it, well, then I’m for sure feeling confident enough to ask GM approve it.

  38. I am actually quite happy that Pang Da would still be involved, but I was not too keen on the sudden change of terms they tried, but they seem like a company that has a good track record of innovation and quality.

    • I thought I read that Pang Da wasn’t involved, just Youngman and a yet to be named new company.

  39. Question? How much does General Motors control in terms of ownership in SAAB?

  40. For all concerned this deal need speedy agreement. There are many people dependent on this for their ongoing livelihood, it’s so much more than a brand issue.
    For many it’s unfortunately too late dealers are closing and without them Saab’s ability to sell their products, cars, parts accessories is becoming compromised making the deal potentially less effectual.
    For me as a loyal customer I want to continue Saab ownership, however yesterday I found out that my local dealer, Adrian Smith in Aberdeen UK is closing on Dec 30th. This is a family owned dealership that has sold Saabs almost exclusively for 30+ years who has offered great service with a brand passion, the employees have all kinds of Saabs from 99’s to NG9-5’s. With them gone my continued Saab ownership is badly hit. There are no local Saab specialists and the nearest dealers are over 100miles away and I want to continue not only to own Saabs but have them serviced by Saab people, something that has just got a lot harder.
    To those that can influence this deal to save Saab please progress this as soon as possible before more great dealers go under as they portray the company to the buyers and without them even us loyalists may look elsewhere.