Youngman in Trollhättan on Wednesday

December 21, 2011 in News


Youngman and the CEO Rachel Pang has not given up hope on Saab. This is confirmed by Johan Nylén, lawyer at the firm Baker McKenzie in Stockholm who are representing Youngman.

– They will arrive in Sweden wednesday to meet with the administrators. The management for the company are very disappointed with GM’s decision this weekend, but they are very interested in finding a solution. De will try to act fast. They are interested in Saab’s development, Saab Powertrain and the Phoenix technology. In reality they are interested in trying to save as much as possible of the current operations in Trollhättan.

Johan Nylén describes a layout thats based on trying to avoid the obstacles that could be put in place by GM. The hope is to be able to build todays version of the 9-3, which is not an obstacle with GM and then use the Phoenix technology in coming generations or cars.
– The time frame for a new model is about 2 years, its a question of a transition period.

In interviews with chinese media yesterday, after the bankruptcy was a fact, Rachel Pang said that there was a great asset in the Phoenix technology.

Rachel Pang also talks about the swedish development company Swedish Saab Automobile Development. The impression is that the youngman-ceo gives is that youngman would partly have rights to some of the technology developed for the next generation Saab-cars.

This will surly be an issue for negotiation since all Saab’s assets are now part of the bankruptcy package?
– Yes, Youngman has invested 60 million Euro in Saab and paid for licenses, say Johan Nylén

On the question on what will happen next, Rachel Pang explains to the chinese media that Youngman now wants to move on and set up operations in Sweden and also mentions the range of Saab models which was to be developed with the Phoenix-technology, such as the 9-1, 9-6 and 9-7 on top of the base-models of 9-3 and 9-5.

According to sources to TTELA, several other chinese companies have expressed interest in Saab, who they are we’ll probably know shortly but its probably established chinese car companies.

159 responses to Youngman in Trollhättan on Wednesday

  1. um… WOW is all i can say…. I imagine by the time i wake up, more will change. Goodnight saabland.

    • Might be instead of a Saab it will be Youngman Phoenix, but eitherway it’s good for the local people if they get the factory up and running.

      • Besides Chinese crashtechnology isn’t worlds best and doesn’t have a good rep, but it’s getting good and if Youngman and Pang-Da get Saab they do get really good technology for crashtesting also Turbo technology, they do get really good things about technology.. About Trollhättan thought it’s a big blow if they don’t get the factory running, before the factory if it’s closed had already hight unemployement about 12% of the population there not it will be around 15% but this is only them you are written in the offices.. about 20% off the population there is still unemployed.

  2. There is some hope in this, however, faint. I’m interested in reading that GM is not concerned about the 9-3. There may just be a way forward in there if that report is true.

    • That’s also interesting….

      If the new 9-3 is about 55 percent GM as it stands, what would need to be removed and retooled? Who would supply those components?

      If they’re able to get the Lotus Engineering folks involved, and were planning to produce them with domestic components…they might have a winner…

      • In hs bankruptcy speech VM said 10%. So with this very unclear values there must be a review of this.

  3. Any Chines company come, just hope they buy Saab as a whole, don’t tear it down and buy part by part, and move it back to China. I hate to see that.
    If YM can buy as a whole and continuous the operations in Sweden, even they change the name, they change the griffin logo, that will be fine. At least it still original from Sweden…

    • Hey if it doesn’t say saab and have the scream’n chicken logo on the hood then it’s lost all character-no?

      • Just a minute. I thought that the Griffin LOGO would one day expire anyway. and even if id did. It could always have the SAAB logo anyway and this is already on the back of the 9-5 anyway.

        • Peter, the “scream’n chicken” logo belongs to Scania AB. Old Saab had a licence for that logo, and the licence had to be renewed after five or seven years. So, with a healthy Saab Automobile, I don’t think that Scania would have problems renewing that licence.

      • “scream’n chicken”
        Never heard that one, Great name for a Saab club! 😀

    • I agree…but it would be great if the kept the saab name

  4. Go on Youngman! And please try again and again to negotiate with GM rights to make 9-5 too…. There just must be a solution for that. But still I prefer Saab without 9-5 if an alternative is that there is no Saab at all. Rachel Up!

    • Or is that “Pang Up !!” [wink]

    • Jouni,
      I love the 9-5 but I don’t think that we will see any MY12 on the streets. GM has too many projects based on the Eps II LWB platform.
      It is not only the LaCrosse or the XTS but yesterday I read the the 2014 Chevy Impala will also be based on that platform.

  5. BAIC already has the old 9-3 technology. Why would the Chinese Government want Youngman to compete with BAIC? This is why I believe the Phoenix and the facilities in Sweden are what Youngman is after. I think the only way for Saab to survive is to get GM out of the equation and focus on the new 9-3. Tim, I don’t know if I can keep up with the drama. My family thinks I’m nuts. Please keep the info coming though, your doing a great job.

  6. +1 if operations and design stay here in Sweeden for Europe and USA market, then Rachel up! I dont care if the car is called YM motors… if they build me a turbo manual wagon and back it up with good warranty, im buying.

  7. This sounds very wrong to me. Why now would GM not care about producting 9-3’s but they were 3 days ago? If this was known all along why didn’t Swan just stop making 9-5’s which were not selling very well, and turn around and make a deal with Youngman? So what is being say here is that the NG 9-5 sunk Saab, as it became a no-go for GM to share it’s acrhitecture with the Chinese??? Either I missed something, or someone has failed to bring this up before. Either way if GM will deal with Youngman in producing 9-3s for another couple of years. Great news. I have two of them and I think they can squeeze a couple or more years out of that design. After all they got 13-14 out of the 900. And yes, I would also take a living Saab with only 9-3s, rather then no Saabs at all. Plus they can keep the price down on their products with that older design. Sounds like a win/win.

    • I guess with so much debt before, YM think if only 9-3 for transition, that will cost a lot in two year before the new model out. But right now, without all the debt, they can stand the lose for only selling 9-3. Just my guess, perhaps I am wrong. Just really hope they can produce 9-3 without GM permission.

      • You are probably right, Quickbird, considering the age of the current 9-3. Hang in there, all will be in the end.

    • Come on Chris the lack of advertising and GM not properly trying to market to a new owner not the ng 95 killed saab. I’ve driven saab’s for 20 yrs now and during the last 3 many have asked me if saab went bankrupt 3 yrs ago. 93’s are nice, a dealer here has 2 93x sc white and silver, wish I could afford 1 as I would still not be afraid to own.

      • Saabtek, I think you mis-understood my point ( sorry it was not written well) What I was saying is that the problem for GM was the I.P. in the new 9-5 that may have been a deal breaker for GM in regard to the Swan/Youngman. Need to work on my writing!

    • That may be why SAAB was in trouble all the time with 13 to 14 years in one model design. I love the old 9-5 and bought several through its 12 year run, but Americans love new models. Kia is really strong in the US because they come out with new designs all the time. Americans want and seem to need constant change. I really think the old 9-3 is past its prime. Honestly, I owned a 2005 9-3. It was a fun car but it was getting long in the tooth then. I’m keeping my 2007 9-5 Aero forever. I still want the new 9-3 really bad though and would definitely buy one to sit alongside my 9-5. I just couldn’t buy tthe current 9-3 new. It needs to change and if it’s in 2 years than I’m still interested.

    • Maybe they throw in the 93 to prevent any sues and bad speaking on GM.

  8. Sad to think the 9-5 combi is still-born. I guess it’s foolish to think GM would build the 9-4xand allow youngman to produce the 9-5 sedan and conjuror allmarkets other than China.
    I tend to think it is GMs Chinese partner and the importance of this market toGM long term for growth and profitability that pressured them to say no to Chinese competition. In all other markets, building the 9-4x as a subcontractor and gaining “royalties” on 9-5 production is nothing but cream for GM that wrote SAAB off the balance sheets

    • svx 92 are you a subaru fan also?

      • Yes, I had a love hate relationship w my 92 SVX. Loved the flat6 boxer engine, the quirky jet plane side glass treatment. Hated that I had 8 transmissions in the car during my 6 years owning it. Too much torque for the Legacy derived tranny.

  9. If this is the case, then why didn’t youngman just buy Saab from Swan anyway, and let GM cancel the license, since now that license is lost anyway. At least the company would be intact, the museum woiuldnt be in danger, and the saab name would be secured.

    This is so upsetting, because if Youngman knew they would never give up in the event of a bankruptcy, then why didn’t they just buy Saab entact when they had the chance no matter what GM said?

    • You said it brotha!

    • Because they can save lots of money this way.

    • I also agree 100%, maybe it will make sence in the coming days?

    • Why pay the price for all of the GM rights knowing they would not be worth anything?

      • What GM rights would be purchased? If they knew the 9-5 and 9-4x licenses would not be granted to them by GM period, then why not just do without them, and get the whole company, without paying for the GM rights (just like they will be doing now in bankruptcy?) It will be more risky and difficult now, because it can go any way now because its solely at the administrators discretion now.

    • My guess answer to your questions would be that they feared that without the sales of the 9-5 and 9-4x they couldn’t offset all of the debt they’d inherit as the new owner. If this report is true (a big IF), Youngman would start with a clean slate and none of Saab’s inherited debts. The production and sales expectations would be much smaller, but without massive indebtedness they think it might work, especially if they can rescue the 9-3, which still looks decent, but technologically is in its advanced years, while newer GM-free models based on the Phoenix are developed. For all his problems, Lofalk did seem to affirm that Youngman has access to the financial resources necessary to fund a Saab relaunch, especially I’d think if it’s soon.

      • Soon could not be any sooner than 2 years though for a new model 9-3, right?

        • Apparently. By soon I guess I just meant purchasing the company soon, before it’s broken apart. With the promise of strong enough financing perhaps Saab AB would allow the use of the name to be included in the sale; although, I am sure they will be very careful about who, if anyone, may use the name. Right now Saab AB is intent on making it clear that it is not bankrupt and that it and the automotive business are completely separate companies, albeit with a shared history and name.

          • IMHO, I think they are not willing to share the name any more, because these two years, the negative news of Saab Auto already impact them a lot.
            Really hope we still can use the name and Griffin Logo…

      • “without the sales of the 9-5 and 9-4x they couldn’t offset all of the debt they’d inherit as the new owner. If this report is true (a big IF), Youngman would start with a clean slate and none of Saab’s inherited debts.”

        But that’s the thing, they are going to inherit Saab debts anyway, and the 9-5 and 9-4x will still not be made. Regardless the suppliers will get paid, employees paid, etc. No matter where Youngman turns, they will get hit by debts.

        Example: If they buy Saab as it is in bits and pieces (but all the pieces), they are probably going to have to buy the factory back from Hemfosa, whatever was sold to pay the employees will need to be bought back, whatever was sold to pay for the supplier debts, will need to be reacquired, and any other debts Saab racked up under SWAN will need to also be paid through the selling of bits and pieces of the company. THUS, all those pieces will need to be acquired via money…because they are a debt. Am I right?
        The biggest problem is I just hope Youngman is first in line to get the Saab Museum collection, factory, Phoenix, the stake in E-AAM, any development departments, and hire all the employees before they bleed to other companies. Everything else is secondary to me.

        For some reason, I have a very very good feeling, because this may REDUCE those debts, and make a purchase very quick and easy for Youngman as long as the administrators allow Youngman to “cut the line” on every component sold. Since, as the Mullinator said, it is possible to acquire the entire entity out of bankruptcy, I find it relieving that Youngman is on the ground already, with a headstart before things really start moving later this week. They just need to move at God speed…

        And as far as the SAAB trademark goes, I pray they can keep it. If they can’t, I can care less if they call the new cars “You can kiss my Swedish arse” as far as I’m concerned right now. Just get Trollhattan up and running again.

        • KMSA. kiss My Swedish Arse.

        • I must confess to having a bit of trouble understanding your example. First, you state that YM buys all the pieces of Saab. Then, that they will have to buy those pieces back? From themselves? Doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to me. The bankruptcy administrators have a job to do, which is sell as much of Saab’s assets as possible for as big a bag of money they can. The money they thus make is then used to pay back the many entities that Saab are indebted to. Any debts not being covered are canceled. After that’s all done, the buyer owns the assets and there are no more debts.
          The only way your example makes sense to me is if Youngman only buys a part of the assets, and the rest is sold to other parties. Then of course YM would have to approach those parties and attempt to buy the assets. I have a hard time figuring out, though, why then YM wouldn’t just buy ALL of the assets to begin with? All they have to do is make sure theirs is the best offer, and the bankruptcy administrators will pretty much have to sell it all to them.

  10. wheeler – dealers. They got rid of a lot of debt – GM, the suppliers, others..

  11. im surprised that people didn’t slightly expect YM to do this. ever since saab was being taken over these past few years, there have always been comments on SU saying that it would make sense for a company to hold out until bankruptcy to make a move in order to avoid the mountain of debt. it seems that possibility maybe coming true now.

  12. They don’t care about 9-3 tech because it’s already old, and contains nothing of any real value to GM. What they do NOT want is the Chinese getting their hands on the tech in the NG9-5, which also lies under the Chinese-sold Buicks. Youngman would then be a direct competitor to SAIC, which builds GM cars there, so you can bet who put pressure where when GM said no last week.

    GM has no claim to Phoenix, zero, none. THIS is what Youngman wants, and rightly so – it’s amazing. GM simply can’t stop them.

    • I thought someone stated that Phoenix had a small percentage of GM tech. Am I wrong or is that ok because it is so little and maybe can be altered so it’s 100% GM free.

      • yes VM said in the press conference that it has, if i recall correctly, 10-15% GM license in it. it would take more money and time to divest the GM licenses used on the platform to make it 100% independent.

  13. Here’s a crazy idea (purely for entertainment).
    How about get those toolings for the C900 back? Start building original true to spec C900s – that would last the company for 2 years. I know I want one.

  14. I’d be sad to see the production 9-5SC never seeing the light of day. Or for that matter more 9-5 sedans.

    And the 9-4X, while no X3/Q5, it’s still a good crossover with sufficient Saab DNA, and it’s received a fair number of good reviews (over the Cadillac SRX). Saab needs the 9-4X in the North American market.

    • Maybe a reborned Saab should give up the US market since it’s hard to make any money on selling cars in US?

      • But based on a mixed calculation it gives more sales figures and it’s needed to buy customized parts from suppliers.

    • Well, or GM buys back or reclaims all the tooling for the 9-5 and starts producing it as an Opel “Senator” in Rüsselsheim, along with the Insignia. Too much money spent to waste this fine car, methink.

      Or they make some modifications to the 9-5 to make it more Opel-like. In this case, they could ask Saab to do those modifications, which might keep a new Saab afloat until the complete the next 9-3.

  15. That may be why SAAB was in trouble all the time with 13 to 14 years in one model design. I love the old 9-5 and bought several through its 12 year run, but Americans love new models. Kia is really strong in the US because they come out with new designs all the time. Americans want and seem to need constant change. I really think the old 9-3 is past its prime. Honestly, I owned a 2005 9-3. It was a fun car but it was getting long in the tooth then. I’m keeping my 2007 9-5 Aero forever. I still want the new 9-3 really bad though and would definitely buy one to sit alongside my 9-5. I just couldn’t buy tthe current 9-3 new. It needs to change and if it’s in 2 years than I’m still interested.

  16. Chinese authorities have decided to impost tariffs of 12.9% on GM product, 8.8% on Chrysler, 2.0% – 2.7% on BMW and Daimler Benz product. Read what one likes into this but GM will not want to upset the Chinese authorities any further and Youngman losing their initial outlay on Saab will not go down well in China. [refer to Bloomberg news wires 14/12/2011]

  17. I hope CJ and his Group will be in Trollhättan soon as well…

  18. So face lift current 9-3 reduce prices to increase volume and turn over while they are a single model producer.

    Re-engineer current 9-5 to remove all GM IT rights, obviously not an over night job but can be done by the sounds of it and if you have enough money. While they are at it they should address the negative media responces that have been made about that car i.e cheap feeling interior etc 12 months down the track they can hit the ground running with a ‘new 9-5′ and shortly after or a the same time the ‘new 9-3′.

    Didn’t SAAB come to some sort of arrangment with BMW to supply component for the yet unborn 9-1. Perhaps the whole range could be BMW based. That would be awsome!

    If this works and I hope it does then perhaps all GM has done is instead of killing of a competitor is has
    “Woken sleeping Giant”

  19. Please China,

    kick GM out of your country and the problem will be solved 😉

    If they loose the chinese market – what will they do since USA is bankrupt?

  20. Well , this could be good news. Anyway its nice to wake up with this message . Of to work now !

  21. GM said that they couldn’t support any deal with any Chinese company because they needed to protect their shareholders interests.

    It must be in the shareholders interest to earn more money and therefore it’s not impossible that a deal can be made to produce all models again. If not, then GM doesn’t act in their shareholders interest. GM can’t calculate that every non sold Saab would make them sell one more car, not even in China. Buyers that could have bought a Saab has almost an endless amount of other makes to choose from in China.

    On an off-topic topic: I don’t know what to do now that my 9-5 SC not will be built. Can’t find any other car that I want :(

  22. Hmm, I know it´s sad that they probably if this is true cannot produce 9-5 and 9-4x. But what do we want? Saab the brand or just 9-5 and 9-4x?
    But I think, this could be a fresh restart, taking Saab into a new way. Starting from a new point.

  23. Maybe taking the 9-5 out of the eqvation is also à wise decision as it wasn’t selling very Well. (sad abt the 9-5sc though)
    Producing 9-3x, 9-3 covertible, 9-3sedan is 3 types although old, it’s a variety of models in good price range.

    The billiondollar questio is: would GM supply the parts?!
    I would say no.

    • I understand. But from now it´s just to save who can be saved.
      And I know, GM is a critical point.
      It´s just to wait again and see what will happen. I think Youngman have thought about this situation.
      And it´s great that the whole management company is comming. 😀

    • Well if it’s old technology that they have no further interest in, why not? I dont think they disagree to sell parts just to be mean…

  24. I have found an interesting analysis in a french forum about Saab and GM, I’ll try later to translate it in english, but for the moment here is the full text in french :

    “Non, monsieur Holtz, ce n’est pas tout-à-fait de la technologie GM maquillée en Saab, mais bel et bien des brevets Saab, déposés par les bureaux d’études Saab en US Patent et détenus de droit par GM, son propriétaire du moment.

    1) Le 9-4X est la base du Cadillac SRX, et non l’inverse. La plate-forme a été développée par un ingénieur Saab, le bien connu Peter Dörrich. Les brevets sont détenus par GM. S’agissant de la 9-5, la plupart des innovations techniques également utilisées dans l’Opel Insignia, puis dans certaines Chevrolet et Cadillac, sont le fruit du travail des ingénieurs Mats Fägerhag et Stefan Rundquist, des bureaux d’étude Saab.

    2) Le système de transmission intégrale (XWD) vient d’une collaboration entre le Suédois Haldex (qui vient de vendre sa division transmission à l’américain BorgWarner) et Saab, le brevet est détenu par GM.

    3) La technologie Biopower (flexfuel) est également une invention de Saab Powertrain, sous la géniale direction cérébrale de l’ingénieur Kjell Bergström, ingénieur Saab. Les brevets (y compris Trionic, Direct Ignition, etc. ) sont malheureusement détenus par GM.

    4) Les motorisations hybrides en développement sont également le fruit de cerveaux Saab, notamment Tommy Lindholm. Brevets détenus par GM.

    5) Le moteur Ecotec, qui équipe certaines Saab, des Cadillac, Chevrolet et Opel est le fruit d’une collaboration entre un bureau d’étude Saab, et le bureau d’étude GM Europe, dont fait partie Opel. Brevets détenus par GM.

    6) Le design des parties intérieures et de la carrosserie sont issus du bureau de design Saab, par Simon Padian, Anthony Lo (maintenant chez Renault), etc. Brevets appartenant à GM. C’est ainsi qu’on retrouve le même volant partout.

    Liste non exhaustive.

    La seule chose qui n’appartienne pas à Saab est la nouvelle plate-forme Phoenix (10% seulement de pièces GM), la transmission hybride eXWD et le système d’exploitation du logiciel embarqué (de source Android) qui équipe la toute nouvelle 9-3 dont le lancement était prévu en 2012. C’est ce que convoite désormais Rachel Pang, PDG de Youngman.

    • As a patent attorney by profession I can understand that GM has centralized the IP in the mother company. So yes, Saab/Opel/Other GM brands are paying licenses for technology they developed in-house. Sad but true.

      But from a professional point of view I would also like to see the patent families in order to see what is actually protected by the claims of those patents and to investigate whether there are go-around solutions possible. Has anybody got the patent numbers for me?

  25. Here we go people! Things are about to get even more interesting.
    The courage these people have is outstanding. A true inspiration.
    Fingers crossed, let’s pray something positive can of this for our beloved brand.

  26. So, Tim, there’s no hope for the 9-5? If i understand it’s just to continue to build the old 9-3 until the new one is ready?
    I feel so sad, I love the 9-5 and I would buy a SC this year….

  27. There are news on Turkish Newspapers about the news that , Victor Muller Contacted Turkey, recommended Saab To Turkish goverment. and had talks with some businessman from auto industry..

  28. After black monday i was doomy and gloomy, a friend at work put a first smile on my face this week with his crazy fantasy, he said: don’t worry Chinese will buy it anyway and within few years Saab will have great range of vehicles, will build a dealer opposite every Caddillac’s (GM’s flagship) dealer in US and they will outsell GM’s jewel on their home market.. the game will change, revenge will come. lol. Few hours later i’m reading this entry and thinking: impossible is nothing?

  29. Youngman must seal the deal quickly before the sub-contractors terminates SAAB parts production and already severely damaged SAAB image goes to the drain. I guess that some kind of MoU must be signed before the end of the year.
    This 9-3 strategy makes sense to me. The platform is really old, almost none of the present GM cars use it, and GM will stop it only if they are 100% devoted to kill SAAB. I don’t think that is true, they will now try to avoid the bad image. Maybe the SAIC will try to persuade GM to kill SAAB for good, but I guess the NDRC have something to say on this. They are the boss in China!
    Regarding the 9-3, it is getting really old, but the model is good for China, I suppose, and also I think that with the right price it can be attractive for other markets as well. I could think of buying a new 9-3X. But the price must go down.

  30. I can say this:

    I rather see Saab only offer a 9-3 for one or two years instead of nothing at all, and then they will keep going with the PhoeniX :) Shame though we have to say goodbye to 9-5 and 9-4X :( For now!


    • Indead, drop the current SAAbs 9-3 and 9-5, devolop new models instead and use hte numers 90, 900 and 9000 again, for a bigger model what the SAAB 9-7 could hav bee: 90000 and perhaps for sportive models make the name Sonett free of dust and then for SUV(looking) SAAB’s: 90A(llwheeldrive), 900A, 9000A and so on.
      Instead the X for allwheeldrive using the A and that because it’s the first letter of allwheeldrive, in my thaught that also is more easy to explain wht is special by that SAAB and don’t look like the X which was used when GM owned (for some people perhaps ruined) SAAB.

      Let’s hope ther will come a shiny day for SAAB, the sooner, the better!

    • There’s more hope now then 😀

    • Oh yeah, and the group is represented by our dear Rolf Abjornsson, who was basically anti-SAAB for the whole time. He used to be the first “voice of sense” in Swedish media stubbing a knife, whenever SAAB was in deep sh@t for the past nine months. He was the whole time against Chinese-Russian track in SAAB and was saying that there were serious investors waiting for SAAB to go bust.
      Personally I don’t believe him, and I don’t believe that the group will continue producing cars in Trollhattan. But of course if the group wants SAAB cars to be produced, has financial muscles and can seal the deal with GM to continue production of 9-5 and 9-4 they are very welcome!

  31. Which of the 9-3:s did Baic buy? Had a strange thought where Baic and YM joins up and builds old Saab models i Trollhättan… With the old aeroplane logotype of course :)

    • They only want the factory and technology…

      • Could be, but Magna is Canadian and the Canadian gov. is one of the owners of GM, i.e. they have some power to flex

        • The roots of Magna are Austria in Europe 😉 Formerly known as Steyr, which developed the Saab 2.2tid and also the first new gen CR BMW diesels.

          • Yes and No. Magna was started in Canada in the 50ies, and bought the Austrian SteyerDaimlerPuch company in late 90ies. However, the guy that started Magna was an Austrian, but Magna is an Canadian group and not Austrian

    • And they have Technology Portfolio to boost development time of Phoenix and can free it from GM IP. They’re a stake in the market and can deal in partnership with YM/ PD.

      • And they already wanted to enter the OEM circus as they tried to buy Opel.

        I think it would be a good match, Magna has some tech and they could use Saab as showcase for that tech, furthermore Saab has a platform, so they don’t have to start from scratch, and Saab is small, so maybe it is not seen as a big thread by other OEMs.

        Back in 2009, VAG said it would cancel any contract with Magna if they have bought Opel.

        • Do you really think VAG could be that stupid? They wouldn’t be able to produce their cars without Magna (guessing since I don’t know what components they buy from Magna). Actually, a world free of dressed up Skodas would certainly be a better world 😉

        • Yepp.

          The showcase is the thing. That would bring Saab innovation and they would be early adapters.

    • I think that Magna doesn’t want to continue producing SAAB cars. They want just the factory and maybe some R&D.

    • Ha, didn’t I tell you two days ago?!

      Magna made several attempts to buy manufacturers, and all had huge assembly capacity (except Aston Martin), so I do think that Magna is also interested in the assembly line in Trollhättan. They presently only have one in Graz (?), and might feel like they want to expand their capacity. Considering the enourmous development resources that Magna has as a supplier, I actually believe that this aspect is more important than aother small design team up in Sweden.

      Though Magna could of course offer a complete development cycle for customers if they had a modern platform.

  32. So Youngman are supposed to take over Saab, but they won’t have any cars for two years until the new 9-3. It will take another 4-5 years to develop new cars and get it out on the market.

  33. I was wondering;
    What if GM (in typical GM-fashion) would eventually continue producing the 9-4X with a different badge, say GMC. Wouldn’t we all hate that? Or would we…? Technically it would be the same very well engineered car but with another badge… Not produced in Trollhattan ofcourse, but than again, it never was..
    How would we feel about that?
    just curious..

  34. I think that is out of this situation, and it seems pretty obvious to me that it is very effective, but do not want to write about it here –

  35. If the current 9-5 is the stone in the road, perhaps Youngman can reach some kind of agreement with GM in which the current 9-5 wouldn’t be sold in China until a future model, without GM technology, is developed. Then GM wouldn’t have a competitor in China for some years. Would that make happy the people in Detroit?

    But then there is the 9-4X…..

    Some kind of solution/agreement can be reached, brainstorming is required.

  36. Keep the 9-3 Sedan and Convertible and add a roof to the Convertible to get a Coupé. It will works for at least 2-3 years.

    • True. But dynamically, that chassis needs some work.

      • Then let it be worked upon. Look at the ‘magic’ the MG Rover boys wrought on the Rover 45 chassis to turn it into the MG ZS, arguably one of the best- handling FWD cars at the time.

  37. They should hurry up ! I just read on that Saab employees received information they will be sacked by the receivers.

    • Don’t worry, even if they will be laid off now they can get their jobs back afterwards if Saab will be building cars again

  38. If they would continue on with the current 9-3 I sure would love to to see the old Saab ‘push-button’ dash back instead of the ‘generic’ GM dash…

    • +1
      GM srewed up a great ‘cockpit’ ,
      eventually they did the same with the OG 9-5 dash….
      I kinda understand why some people fall back on driving an old 9000 again…
      (IF you can still find a good one that is…)

  39. I wonder if GM is aware of that the “current” 9-3 is already sold to China? If you recall it, GM allowed Saab to sell the pre-facelift 9-3 to Beijing Auto (BAIC) which is built on the GM Epsilon 1 platform.

    The Phoenix platform is designed with Epsilon 1 as starting point. So the 10-15 per cent remaining GM parts in the Phoenix are firstly from a platform GM do not use anymore, secondly it’s already in China.

  40. plan z from VM then:

    write down debts
    ditch 95 /95SC /94x
    continue 93 and major overhaul….there are loads of small improvements to make to keep this running for a few years.
    slash the price on 93- target volume temporarily just to let people know SAAB is still here.
    Build super gorgeous 95 that whoops A6, 5, and E… time to go all guns blazing on the new vehicle. dont hold back.
    chinese are not afraid to copy but they are also not afraid to try something new.
    one last thing make 93 a hatch that will solve a few 95sc problems.

  41. Questions that need answears?!
    1. Who is actually deciding on who gets to buy Saab now.
    (we all now GM choose only the financially weak buyers back in 2009-10.
    2. So if the bidding parties are: Magna, Youngman, Secret group.
    Who is preferred buyer, can the seller of Saab, sell different parts to different companies, ex. Production to Magna, R&D to Youngman, Marketing to Pangda and legally tie them into a joint venture.
    3. Is Swedish gov or GM the largest stakeholder / Saab owes money to. Does this mean that GM still might have a veto right.

    • I can only answer question 2.
      AFAIK, the receivers will first try to sell the company as a whole, if this doesn’t work they will start selling it bolt by bolt.

    • I don’t think that the stakeholders have any veto rights after the bankruptcy. GM has right to stop the IP for the vehicles, but can not veto eventual sale to whoever the administrators choose. I think that the administrators sell to whoever offers the most money.

    • AFAIK
      1 The Official Receiver, whose duty it is to obtain the maximum amount of money for the assets for distribution to the stakeholders in a legally prescribed order (which has been mentioned in another thread before).
      2 I believe that this will be a simple auction, with the highest bidder winning. Were the Receiver to exercise judgement regarding the ‘likely nature of continuing employment’ or the ‘objectives of the Government’ then that will reduce the realisable value and so disadvantage some of the stakeholders. He/she will try to sell all the assets as a going concern first, because that is likely to yield the highest value. Since there will be a number of bidders it is unlikely that there it will need to go to a fire sale of the broken up assets and so any interested party would be well advised to bid for the whole.
      3 GM never did have a veto right over a sale, but over the licenses for the use of its legally protected technology under the condition of a sale of more than a certain amount of voting control of the Company. That made an effective sale impossibly expensive for a purchaser, given the level of debts prior to the bankruptcy. A purchaser would have to decide whether or not to negotiate a renewal of these licenses and the likelihood of that being obtained in assessing what they are prepared to offer.

      • I forgot to mention that the assets, which have been pledged against debt will pass into the ownership of the lender first.

        • Which means that, for instance, Saab Parts will go to the Swedish government (was pledged as collateral for guaranee of EIB loan) and the ownership of the factory and terrains will pass to Hemfosa since Saab, being bankrupt, will renege on lease payments.


          • I suppose that these owners, such as SweGov, Hemfosa and Pang Da could then choose to offer these assets for sale through the Receiver to enhance the value of the overall package – by putting a reserve price on them?

            • They could. Or they could try to sell them to the buyer of the remaining Saab assets in direct bipartisan negotiations for the highest attainable price. Or…


  42. If they have a good plan I would prefer Magna.
    After all Canada, like Sweden, is also a Nordic country eh ? 😉
    Although in a ‘perfect world’ Bombardier would still be my #1 choice…

  43. It really is time for a reprise of that Village People number somebody posted a while back:

    Youngman …

  44. Rachel, give Trollhättan a Nice christmas !!

  45. I have a dream : magna + youngman = new Saab = f…k GM !

  46. A slightly cynical view: maybe Youngman is being pushed to grow or be killed when the Chinese Government engineers the next round of auto sector consolidation in China?

    • Could be, but I doubt it. YM will have to move quickly to acquire Saab from the Receiver and it knows this, as evidenced by their presence in Sweden today. There can be no waiting for three months on a decision by the NDRC, so it is most likely that this has already been cleared by the Chinese Government, who seem to have chosen YM to spearhead their effort. Of course, that’s not saying that consolidation won’t come subsequently.

  47. Tim … when can we expect more news?

    • The latest news I can give is that Youngman is in Trollhättan now in talks if i’m not mistaken :)

      Fingers crossed

      SAAB UP