Brightwell & Bankruptcy Administrators sign confidentiality agreement
January 26, 2012 in News
The turkish company brightwell and the bankruptcy administrators have signed an agreement of confidentiality which binds both parties not to disclose any information to other parties. One reason according to P4 West could be that Brightwell has in fact placed a bid for Saab that is not to be disclosed to other parties or persons.
As we have been reporting previous Brightwell has been a long time interested party in Saab. They were in contact with Saab and Victor Muller long before the bankruptcy became reality. During the We are many, we are Saab meeting in The Netherlands a representative from Brightwell attended the meeting together with Victor Muller, I have heard from very secure sources that he was mighty impressed with Saab, its heritage and its devoted fans.
Jatri Mäkelä said on January 26, 2012
Something is going on ! GOOD !!
M.A. said on January 26, 2012
+1
Eric said on January 26, 2012
Things are stirring for the better.
But who gets Saab is still up in the air to us all.
Trued said on January 26, 2012
Sounds very promising. Who knows, turkey is part of NATO and are of course NOT chinese, they might even buy GM trucks there. It has been very quiet from the Pang family. We just might be in for a change. I love turkish figs…..
turbokalle said on January 26, 2012
+1. We are in for some interesting couple of weeks.
SaabMan said on January 26, 2012
I know that Brightwell haven’t been the preferred bidders for many. But given that they have made a bid, my fingers are crossed. With stories of dealership closures, SCNA’s bankruptcy, and top engineers finding other positions we definitely need some good news. There is so much promise in Saab and the Saab community, and now it can even be bought debt free.
Jatri Mäkelä said on January 26, 2012
I was involved “We are many, We are SAAB” meeting arranged by Saab Club of Finland and I follow fresh news about SAAB at least twice in a day. I still believe into good outcome of this from SAAB point of view and of course without GM.
Saabo said on January 26, 2012
Ah, I take that as a good sign!
Vagabond said on January 26, 2012
I met a Turkish lady who owns a company, recently and asked her nonchalantly if she ever heard about B.Holdings. She said she didn’t, but that there was a lot of money in Turkey these days…Whatever that means.
DanSaab said on January 26, 2012
Never give up like many people said
Gustaf said on January 26, 2012
Brightwell would not be my first choice, but then again, I’d rather have a living SAAB than a dead one. Brightwell’s comments about keeping “some of the production” left in Trollywood makes me a bit suspicious. On the other hand we don’t know the whole story. The other parties involved probably signed the same agreement, it just did leak out.
JasonPowell said on January 26, 2012
after the recent dealer closure reports, I will gladly accept good news in any way. Not sure if this makes them more of a front runner then any of the others, but it is good to see that they are interested and taking things seriously.
Jatri Mäkelä said on January 26, 2012
Times are tough for all Saab fans. The bankruptcy is the fact, it’s is something terrible, that is not needed to describe anymore by words. It is said, in any sorrow, You need to talk with congenial persons / the friends > It happens here. Back to the track, the confidentiality agreement is a good sign, the receivers won’t sign that kind of agreement without some relevant issues. In other words, it is the case of money, as always in this kind of situation. This pushes some pressure to the Youngman as well and also speeds up the process.
Angelo V. said on January 26, 2012
http://www.foxbusiness.com/news/2012/01/19/youngman-to-submit-sek5-billion-bid-for-saab-report/
Hmmmm….9-3 production to start up in 15 weeks—after bid is accepted? This article is from last week, but has it been refuted yet?
maanders said on January 26, 2012
I just do not see how 15 weeks is possible unless GM would agree to still supply the engines and other parts for the 9-3. (Not sure if they consider that the licensed IP that they would not approve.) If they have to replace the engine and other GM bits in the 9-3, you could have new cars for testing in 15 weeks perhaps, but not new cars rolling off the assembly line that could be sold.
aZuL2001 said on January 26, 2012
Does every (silly) article has to be refuted ?
Don’t count on new produced Saabs this year. It’s not very realistic imho.
(Only what is on the stopped production line now could be finished reasonably fast)
karl said on January 26, 2012
I am HAPPY !!!!!!! GRIFFIN UP
CSD_ChineseSaabDriver said on January 26, 2012
Good news no doubt.
I am for any party to get SAAB back to business.
But the feeling here is that this BW deal is just used as a tool to make the YM deal better.
Just think about a whole Swede delegation has been visiting YM last week.
Richard said on January 26, 2012
After reading up on Brightwell’s ( http://www.brightwell.com.tr ) corporate philosophy and looking through their current investment portfolio, I feel they may be a pretty good fit for Saab. Although most of their holdings include innovative energy technologies of one sort or another, their significant investment in a small South African city commuter vehicle (SynergEthic SA) shows that they are looking to diversify beyond energy technologies and into transportation. I can see that they could provide some significant financial management guidance for Saab, but would also be hesitant that they might use Saab as GM did: a parts bin to enhance their other investments.
That being said – of course anyone interested in buying Saab as a whole right now gets a thumbs up from me.
maanders said on January 26, 2012
I agree. It seems like their interest in new energy and technologies fits in well with Saab’s e-Power, low CO2 and eXWD efforts. If they have the money and skills to help get Saab’s debts paid off and restarted….and rebuild the distribution channels, then this could be a good fit.
Saab4Life said on January 26, 2012
Angelo I think you missed the SU “retraction” post on that topic. It appears it was indeed incorrect. Unless I am thinking of the wrong topic suddenly which is possible since I had insomnia last night and never fell asleep. Brain is not functioning at SAAB like efficiency right now.
In regards to the article, this could be very good news or it could be meaningless or anywhere in between. All that I look at in a situation like this is the the fact that an interested party made a bid; that means there is still interested parties and that means that a revived, restarted, reinvigorated, reinvented, reborn and ressurected (like the Phoenix) SAAB is still in the realm of possibility. That’s most important right now.
That’s just my “two cent”
Oskar Malmgren said on January 26, 2012
It is great to hear positivt news about Saab! I am still a little bit doubtful about Brightwell, but who knows? Maby they can be a good future owner? But I do not really think that the administratiors will sell the company to someone who do not have enough of money. So we’ll see…
saaburban said on January 26, 2012
In à bid, brightwell has to submit sensitive information, same as youngman and Pangda hesitated to do last autumn, when the court asked for more financial info to continue with reconstruction. So things are serious, and 3 bidders are the best situation for Saab / the lawyers. As it seems that brightwell has a victor connection, it means that the YM – VM connection has eroded.
The new M&M interest with an Indian delegation in trollhättan, the intrigue has only increased.
Saab deserve a buyer with:
- Deep pockets
- Both short and longterm objective to continue the brand.
- Professional business culture
- Lack of skills in automotive engineering
- Global and international objective.
dave lewis said on January 26, 2012
“- Lack of skills in automotive engineering”?
I’d think the opposite. While not mandatory, it would be a good thing to have. I would imagine Saab would/will be
on a very short leash with someone looking over their shoulder. But, I suppose if you buy the company, you can also buy the skills. For Saab to make it,there has to be a cold hard nosed approach about what is possible and what is improbable. Most of what I read here is pie in the sky. Be happy if they can open the doors again.
I do agree with the rest.
Smithy said on January 26, 2012
“”During the We are many, we are Saab meeting in The Netherlands a representative from Brightwell attended the meeting together with Victor Muller, I have heard from very secure sources that he was mighty impressed with Saab, its heritage and its devoted fans.”"
This makes me believe in Brightwell, but in the end – THEY NEED big pockets to fire this baby up!
xelav said on January 26, 2012
What about mahindra, they were still in the game?? Confusing all those possible bidders. Like to read something true. And i hate to read every day that “we shall wait and hope for the best” . Aaargh. Sorry guys. Taking my pills now.
Angelo V. said on January 26, 2012
No need to apologize. I think “We shall wait and hope for the best.” and “Stay calm and carry on.” has worn thin on most of us. I like the idea of staying optimistic too—-but we’ve reached a point where reality is setting in. With dealers closing like sugar dissolving in water, time is most definitely not on our side—-time is now the enemy (along with GM). I hope Mahindra is still interested. Between Brightwell, Mahnidra, Youngman—-maybe even Magna—-hopefully a couple legitimate bids will be presented in the next week. I believe Friday of next week is really a tipping point—-if we get out of the first week of February still floundering, I really don’t have a good feeling about this anymore. At that point, I think it will be a wind down, not a possible start up. Also, I think the receivers really need to look at more than just the money being offered. Of paramount importance is the ability to cut GM out of the eqation. If one of these bidders has a business plan of producing cars in the next few months—without the need for GM technology—even if their bid falls short of the others financially, I believe they need to be awarded the bid to take over. General Motors has now proven that they are a savage advesary. Their mission is to close Saab down forever—-I think disputing that shows real ignorance. They don’t want Saab—-not in Sweden, not in China, or Turkey or on Mars. To entertain a plan that will require cooperation from General Motors is the height of naievity. GM will make overtures of possibly going along with a plan—-saying it looks good on paper, they must have their lawyers review it, etc.—–they will string it out long enough to smother other bids that don’t need them—-and at the last minute, they’ll deny the deal. We’ve seen their behavior. Fooled us once, shame on them. Fool us twice, shame on us. Screw the sub-humans at GM. Let’s push for the plan with the best business sense—-and that means NO GM.
CSD_ChineseSaabDriver said on January 26, 2012
Next Monday, good news will come, I believe
dave lewis said on January 26, 2012
I think you are wrong. If you buy Saab, you have 2 plans in your head. One with GM, one without. To not talk to GM is silly. If GM doesn’t want to participate, go to the other plan. But, I wouldn’t talk to GM too long.
Ask GM what it thinks. If they don’t want in, then ok, GM doesn’t want in and move on without them.
This of course means a non-Chinese buyer. If it is Youngman that buys Saab, then don’t bother asking GM.
davidgmills said on January 27, 2012
Angelo talks big because he has bought one Saab, a 2004 9-5 Arc Wagon, and really won’t lose much if GM is cut out of the picture. But for those of us who actually purchased many Saabs in the US (15 for me) losing GM means a serious financial hit. It means I may not get parts for the six Saabs I still have and I will really have to scramble to keep these cars running (one has been sitting for nearly two years as it is needing an engine). The fact that all have GM parts may help parts availability and is a real plus in my book. But pissing GM off won’t give us any incentive to help us with parts.
So I don’t see the point in GM bashing. Especially when none of the other players look like they could ever get much of a network going in the US in the near future (Mahindra may be the exception). If GM is completely out of the Saab picture, I don’t think Saab will ever have a presence in the US again to speak of. Those who bash GM simply don’t want Americans to have Saabs again, whether they realize it or not.
davidgmills said on January 27, 2012
Should have read: But pissing off GM won’t give GM any incentive to help us with parts.
Simply9-5 said on January 27, 2012
Or: Don’t piss off the company that holds your car parts ransom.
“Those who bash GM simply don’t want Americans to have Saabs again, whether they realize it or not.”
I’m almost certain that anybody who has disdain for GM have the pure motivation of keeping Saab out of the United States. It all makes sense now. GM ran Saab into the ground therefore we shouldn’t get mad that GM because they hold most of the cards when it comes to parts……seriously?
Angelo V. said on January 27, 2012
+1
davidgmills said on January 28, 2012
Let’s just rewrite history. Saab lost about $700 million dollars within a year or two of GM’s complete takeover because Saab was in such bad shape before GM took it over and its cars were not doing well in the market. GM paid a billion dollars for a pig and a poke. GM made a huge mistake in buying Saab.
Personally, I am glad GM made the huge mistake of buying Saab because I probably would have never bought any Saabs otherwise.
But obviously, the cheerleaders on this board don’t accept anything like an objective view of Saab’s financial condition when GM bought it.
GM did lots to make Saab a household name in the US despite its poor marketing. Prior to GM taking over Saab, Saab was just a niche player in the Northeastern US.
Rune said on January 28, 2012
whoa there big fella.
In the ten years leading up to GM buying the remaining half of the company… Care to tell the audience what platform GM offered to Saab for the model set to replace the classic 900?
How about looking into how much Saab paid for various GM parts compared to what parts from their old suppliers typically cost?
Or what about the changes in management, causing month long delays on decisions that would have saved millions of dollars? (I was told one story of a proposed change in production that needed to be cleared with one of the GM bosses, but since he was rarely around the decision was delayed for a long time)
David… Many things could have been done differently under GM’s watch. The constant changes in top management made it impossible to carry through a long term strategy. As I understand it, the Aero-X signified a much welcome shift in GM’s priorities, unfortunately it was much too late as the whole world of GM crumbled shortly thereafter.
davidgmills said on January 29, 2012
A crappy platform. But that was before GM bought them out in full. And maybe that was all Saab could afford. If the 900′s platform was so great, why didn’t Saab stick with it?
davidgmills said on January 29, 2012
According to Wikipedia the first GM Saab platform was in 1994 and these losses were in 1991 and 1992 on Saab’s platform. Try again.
davidgmills said on January 29, 2012
The GM 2900 was GM’s best midsized platform at the time (1994) and the Saab 9-3 got the Epsilon platform when it came out (2003) which was GM’s best mid sized platform when it came out and the NG 9-5 got the Epsilon II platform which is GM’s best platform currently.
So are you saying GM was supposed to design a super platform just for Saab?
Or are these just inconvenient facts?
Rune said on January 29, 2012
Yes, they got the same platform as had been used for the Vectra.
Maybe not so bad for the 900 (the first gen was an expensive beast to produce, which was, as I understand it, the main reason for its replacement), but to continue using this (albeit a slightly different variation) for the 9-5?
I hope I do not have to remind anyone here of all the “just an Opel with different interior” comments?
GM could have put Saab engineers in the charge of engineering a new platform to base the first generation 9-5 on.
Hindsight being 20/20 of course, but I think the response to utilizing an Opel platform should have been easy to predict. But maybe this one was down to Saab’s own management team being overly optimistic rather than GM. The other examples I mentioned though… That was pure GM.
(as for the losses, how much of that was due to developing new products? The whole idea of GM getting into Saab was for them to do exactly that. They knew the first years would be rocky.)
Nate 9-3 said on January 27, 2012
The problem is that the same entity that has actively tried to kill SAAB is responsible for parts for SAABs. You can either be angry at them or grovel – your choice. Angelo is angry. He is speaking more to an ideal whereas you are speaking out of pragmatism.
Mix up that mess with the bailout BS and GM’s apparent lack of gratitude for what the taxpayers did for them (even though public opinion was against it) and you get a cesspool of anger, bitterness and unfairness. Why should my dealer have to suffer when they played by the rules? GM failed by the rules, was bailed out for doing so, and then screwed over people who played by the rules and bailed them out. This is pure cronyism. It’s pathetic. Welcome to our 21st Century in America.
Angelo V. said on January 27, 2012
Nate: I mostly agree with you—but really, if I thought groveling would help, I’d do it. I don’t think it’s pragmatic to grovel to GM right now. They’re like a typical bully—-show weakness and they’ll get even bolder—-a bigger head of steam. Show strength and it might accomplish something. I’m not talking about ME showing strength—-I’m talking about Youngman or Mahindra (or the others) showing strength—-in the form of “Hey Government Moochers—-thanks, but we really don’t need you for our plan.” If anything, maybe GM will then try to re-evaluate and license some product if they can make money at it. As far as the bailout goes, you’re spot on.
davidgmills said on January 28, 2012
Except that everyone on this board is bellyaching that Sweden won’t do the same for Saab. So if a country bails out a manufacturer (which I highly support over bailing out banks which I don’t support at all and who are the real culprits in this international fiasco) the country is damned if it bails out a manufacturer, and damned if it doesn’t. Most countries who have successful manufacturing facilities get lots of help from their governments. Both Germany and Japan give lots of help.
If you want a good manufacturing base, in this day and age, the government has to prop it up or it cannot compete with the manufacturers who get government help.
davidgmills said on January 29, 2012
Actually I was reading an article by a noted economist yesterday who was saying that is what countries need to do. Bail out their struggling manufacturers and quit bailing out their banks. Bail out the real economy rather than the pseudo economy.
Angelo V. said on January 27, 2012
David: Not sure I understand what you’re talking about. Can you give me the English translation for this comment you wrote: “The fact that all have GM parts may help parts availability and is a real plus in my book. But pissing GM off won’t give us any incentive to help us with parts.” I think you’re trying to say that taking Saab into the future without being tied to GM’s apron strings will somehow make it more difficult for you to get parts (including an engine?) for some Saabs you currently own? Huh? The discussion is about moving forward—-whether the bidders can do it without needing approval from GM. I’m maintaining that GM has acted as an obstructionist and has not dealt in good faith—-I think that’s fairly obvious. I don’t think they are going to change that approach. If they do—for example if they go along with Brightwell Holdings—-it might be an arrangement where no Saabs can be exported to countries/markets where GM is doing business, including the United States. If a company can manage to continue WITHOUT needing GM, perhaps they can sell cars wherever they want to—-will keep some dealers open—-will keep a parts supply for existing owners, etc. GM is done with Saab. They’ll fulfill some obligations to owners of GM era Saabs for a few years—-basic, very rudimentary obligations. After that, it’s over. The 2010 and 2011 Saabs—-GM wants no part of. No warranty coverage since they aren’t GM products (officially), no parts, no service. Could you please explain in your post how “pissing GM off” is going to hurt us? They want us dead. How much worse can it get after we’re critical of that fact?
OLEH said on January 27, 2012
“General Motors has now proven that they are a savage adversary. Their mission is to close Saab down forever—-I think disputing that shows real ignorance.” these are the gold words.
100% agree with Angelo, SAAB for GM is a big competitor, as GM representative mentioned in one magazine, and they do not want to help competition. Period. They want SAAB dead. Definitely, the future for SAAB is without any technical ideas from GM, so no GM at all. Regarding GM parts in our SAABs, I believe for money these sub-humans from GM would continue to produce them, if they smart enough do not pissed more SAAB owners. Not sure if they care, probably not at all
Angelo V. said on January 27, 2012
As far as parts goes, in the U.S.—-not sure what the current policy is—in the past, it was mandated that manufacturers produce parts (in minimum quantities) for 7 years after ending a model run or closing a company/division. So for example, a GM era 2009 Saab, in theory (if this rule is still in place) should have parts availability until 2016. Might be spotty availability—-but there should be parts around. History shows that the automakers do the bare minimum that they have to do—-OR, if they can make money, they do the MOST they can do. It’s based on profit. Assuming something like this is still in place, GM will do what is required or what is best for them, without any regard at all for people on the internet screaming at them or pandering to them. For 2010 and 2011—-a bankrupt company—-not sure how that works. I would think if they are purchased, the future owner will do something positive for those newer owners.
davidgmills said on January 28, 2012
I know you maintain that GM has not acted in good faith. I disagree. If GM got the right offer for the right price, I think there would be no problem. The tried selling Saab once and the sale ultimately failed (I call Spyker making Saabs for only a year a failure — I don’t know what you call it). So they are being asked to go through this process again with other buyers that either may be worse than Spyker or cause huge conflicts of interest for them and effect other partnerships elsewhere.
I just don’t see them acting in bad faith. I see them wanting the Saab nightmare over and if they really got an attractive offer that looked like the end of the nightmare, I think they would take it. With the right buyer, (Mahindra for example) a Saab nightmare might turn out to be a dream come true. But I think GM is tired of waiting for a dream come true.
Rune said on January 28, 2012
A little more information would be helpful.
Three years ago, there were many parties who were interested in Saab. GM seemed to consistently pick those with the smallest pockets. (Granted, I do not know much about the Koenigsegg group, but my impression was that they did not have unlimited funding — and I think that was the major reason they could not afford to wait for a decision from BAIC, EIB and SweGov to mention some of the stakeholders at that time)
Why… Why would they do that? Why did they pick the little guys? Both Koenigsegg and Spyker had only a small window available for them to succeed. And GM did not exactly help matters by starting the liquidation process of Saab while still negotiating with Spyker.
Show me the good faith David.
davidgmills said on January 29, 2012
They weren’t getting any legitimate offers. There was no Tata, no Mahindra, no Geely. It might have been just like this time. Maybe the big boys would rather buy in bankruptcy and get something real cheap where they can cut out lots of creditors. That happens often.
This is just absolute speculation that they could have sold to bigger players back then without going into bankruptcy.
Maybe in Europe Bankruptcy is a bad word. Here it is just part of doing business and unfortunately to squeeze the little guy — employees suppliers etc. How US management thinks.
Rune said on January 29, 2012
Your source for ‘no legitimate offers’?
davidgmills said on January 28, 2012
You and I are angry for different reasons. My real point is that if GM is not involved in Saab from here on out, any resurrected Saab by any suitor other than Mahindra, probably means Saab is gone from the US for the rest of my lifetime. Mahindra seems like the only company that could bring Saab back to the US in the near future and would also have the desire, since they want badly to be in the US market. And GM might consider licensing to them when it wouldn’t the others because GM really needs to beef up operations in India and could use a partner there.
So I feel stranded with six cars I am going to have to repair with a poor parts supply. I feel like the Europeans who bash GM and the US cars indirectly bash me as well and don’t give a rat’s ass about me. If Saab is gone from here, bashing GM just shoots me in the foot. So I am having a hard time caring about their plight.
The irony is that the NG9-5 was the perfect size 9-5 for America (196 inches) and it came out ten years too late. The old 9-5 had too much competition at that size (189 inches) and was not enough larger than the 9-3 to truly be an American family/business car because of its shorter back seat and average size trunk compared to the more typical upscale American family/business sedans and SUVs.
The new one is just about perfect. Ten years ago a Saab this size could have competed with the big Bimmers, Mercs, Audis, Jags, Lexuses, and Infinities, in interior room and trunk space and been 1/2 to 2/3 the cost. Instead the OG9-5 had to compete in size and price with all of their midsize cars, plus the Volvos, Acuras, Toyotas, Nissans, etc.
But the NG9-5 is too big (and expensive) for Europe and so it gets bashed by the Europeans.
RS said on January 27, 2012
”I need a new engine”
David, what’s wrong with it? If it doesn’t have a crack or a hole in the block, why would you need a new one? Have a good independent put it to pieces, put in some MapTun goodies and start flying or sell it to someone else. You might even make a few bucks from a 350-400+ hp 9-5.
There’s absolutely no point in leaving a ten year old Saab stranded. The GM situation got nothing to do with fixing up an OG.
davidgmills said on January 28, 2012
It is a 1999 2.3 lpt and on sites that sell engines they recommend not to rebuild them. I am not sure why except that the sites say it has something to do with the thickness of the piston walls. It has been a long time since I looked into buying a new engine so I may not be recalling this right. No one locally will try to rebuild it. It also lost its oil pump, which may have been the cause of the ultimate loss of compression in two cylinders. At any rate dropping in a used engine or fixing the one I had would have cost more than the car is worth. So it sits at my mechanics.’
ivo 71 said on January 29, 2012
I’s a so-called Trionic 7 (T7) engine and is known and unappreciated for its proneness to fail in cars with automatic gearchange and low annual mileage. The man cause is black sludge due poor sump ventilation and the fact that the oil doesn’t heat up sufficiently if the car is almost solely utilized for short trips. There is a sump ventilation modification called Mod6 for this which may help to an extent. Also, there are heat exchange problems due -a.o.- to the already mentioned thin-walled pistons. These were introduced for reduced weight of the moving engine parts which, in turn, was supposed to make the engine more environmentally friendly.
But it is quite possible to rebuild the engine using pistons of the previous engine type, the T5, to be found in 2.3 litre engines of the first generation of the 9-3 as well as in the N 900 and the 9000. These are much more robust and will, combined with the aforementioned Mod6, considerably extend the engine’s life. A good rebuild specialist should be able to find them and rebuild the engine with them without problems.
If, however, your engine died due to black sludge (which, ultimately, makes the oil sieve in the sump impassable for oil and causes the engine to seize) then it would probably be a much better choice to find yourself a new/another engine, treat it as described and have it dropped into the car. I know it’s probably an economic abomination to do this but if the car is otherwise fine and you like driving it, it may still be a better and cheaper solution than buying another, less satisfactory car.
Apart from that, I almost totally disagree with your assessment of the GM/Saab relationship. But that´s another story which has already been discussed here many, many times before.
Ivo
RS said on January 29, 2012
Yes, to buy a ”new” used engine is much riskier than renovating the old one IMO. At least then you know what you’re getting. I’m sure if there are Saabers in town there must be someone who could do the job without breaking the bank?
@David, if you don’t want to fix it, you could always give the car to some enthusiastic young man instead of just letting it became totally useless in a few years.
xelav said on January 26, 2012
Speaking about deep pockets, i like it when my new patiënts have deep pockets in their mouth, means work for me:)!
DUTCH900C said on January 26, 2012
Let us hope for a great future!
Ralph said on January 26, 2012
Rivers and railways crossed!
peter bradley said on January 26, 2012
I keep my eye on reports on a weekly basis (from the UK) hopefully we will have some constructive news regarding the Brightwell interest soon! A car as dynamic as the Saab cannot be allowed to pass into the history books.
theSandySaab said on January 26, 2012
Turkey is trending upwards, with some ups and downs…. Surely, there is a lot of resources, incl. funds, available. Also, many Turks in Sweden, so possibly less of a culture clash than with the Chinese… (?)
I had the opportunity to stay 2 nights here:
http://www.swissotel.com/EN/Destinations/Turkey/Swissotel+The+Bosphorus/HOTEL+HOME/Gallery/Rooms/Corner+Room.htm
It was the best hotel I have ever been to (I have been to many)… Room, food and service was perfect (with a Swiss touch…).
The Swissotel Bosphorus is highly recommended!
Now, get Saab and get it started!
Vagabond said on January 26, 2012
The only problem I have with B.H. is that they may be in it only to get environmental grants from the Turkish government, to make electric cars etc. Saab lost a lot of money in the Boston e car business, when those millions could have gone to advertising in N.A. and helping the dealers.
Olav said on January 26, 2012
All positive news about SAAB is indeed very welcomed, but I second your problem with B.H and their environmental profile. Why is a ‘green’ company so keen to buy a car company? I’m afraid that this owner won’t jumpstart the existing SAAB program, none of SAAB’s exisiting models can’t be said to be especialy environmental friendly cars.
That said, I really do hope for the best.
xelav said on January 26, 2012
AngeloV for president .
Nick said on January 26, 2012
This is good news! My numbe oner is still Youngman to get a good access to the biggest market in the world. Since SAAB needs to wright new deals with all dealerships it would be good to get a fast running in China!
tmra said on January 26, 2012
I salute you all as a newbie.
Well as long as i followed noone here really is updated about news on Turkish Press and Social Media. Let me give you some of the latest. There are some interviews, just today showed up about Brightwell CEO Alphan Manas talking about taking over Saab. If anyone interested check it out; (google translator for help) http://www.ntvmsnbc.com/id/25317007/ .
Anyone interested in more, you can follow the CEO Manas ( Zamier Ahmed & Alphan Manas Co-Owners of Brightwell) on Twitter; https://twitter.com/#!/alphanmanas. He tweets about some really serious informations like the latest confidentiality agreement on Saab’s “Data Room”.
Wittendorff said on January 26, 2012
And what he actually says, unless google f….. up the translation, is that they only will produce electric cars and that the production, in time, will be moved to Turkey.
tmra said on January 26, 2012
His plans in Turkey is all about EV’s which he believes its the only future for themselves and Saab. But he also stated that he will keep Trollhättan factory alive and running.
Doug Pietrowski said on January 26, 2012
Beat me to it W…it seems the interest is in the electric technology and wanting Turkey to produce it. But if that’s the case, why make an offer for the company when it would be much less expensive to just purchase the intellectual property?
Richard said on January 26, 2012
I’d like to give the benefit of the doubt with respect to GoogleTrans if only because I can’t imagine BH coughing up that much cash just to grab Saab’s electric vehicle prototype tech for use as a Turkish vehicle. If Saab is already developing such a vehicle, there’s no reason to move manufacturing to Turkey just to have EVs “in Turkey” as Manas states.
All that aside, I see BH as a very strong candidate if only for the slightly larger window of opportunity with the GM brats. Once GM calms down from their “mine, mine, mine!” temper tantrum and find that they have no problem licensing their IP to Turkish interests, then Saab may well be able to restart production with more than one model – which is what may happen if a Chinese investor is involved. It’s still unlikely GM will do anything but slam the door, huff and puff, and stomp away from any potential investor in Saab, but if it’s ABC, then BH at least would have a much bigger potential for revenue once things get restarted.
tmra said on January 27, 2012
Yes, there is a serious EV plan for Saab. But as he stated its not the only one. He only plans to move EV plant to Turkey, rest of the production will stay in Sweden. Brightwell already has its own EV and its factory in Bursa.(where Fiat, Renault, Ford has also) It is a French developed and produced EV but later bought and brought to Turkey by Brightwell. They will combine their tech and knowledge with Saab in terms of EV’s.
zippy said on January 26, 2012
After so many “false dawns” lets hope this is good news. I only hope that there are still enough engineers at Saab to keep the innovation rolling.
kochje said on January 27, 2012
+1
Valvine the Pirate said on January 26, 2012
Is there a date by which all offers must be submitted? I assume the Due Diligence period has concluded since an offer has been tendered.
I am still concerned regarding Dealerships. Too many have elected to throw in the towel although I realize the single brand Dealers really had no choice.
tmra said on January 27, 2012
Brightwell’s offer will take place in two weeks approximately just after they finish evaluating Saab “data room” says the ceo alphan manas.
kochje said on January 27, 2012
When they are following Saab since so long they should hurry-up and get the due diligence done in a much shorter time.
Making the bid itself will not have to take another 15 days, should it?
tmra said on January 27, 2012
Yes it is a fact that Brightwell is running after Saab for a long time. But its now that they are in Saab’s heart the ” data room” just after signing this confidentiality agreement. So i think its normal that it takes two weeks.
kochje said on January 27, 2012
O.K. makes sense; just hope they do the right thing.
Nicco said on January 26, 2012
dosnt feel good in my guts. Lets hope its just domething i ate please let it be the pizza. Im still hoping for the best . Griffin Up
David-SAAB said on January 26, 2012
Something is starting to happen.
griffin up!
DanSaab said on January 26, 2012
+1
tmra said on January 26, 2012
Bytheway Brightwell might not known very well around in terms of its fame but its CEO Alphan Manas vice versa. He is known as a succesful entrepreneur and invester in Turkey. Lately as i commented before up here, he has been interviewed so many times about Saab which are going around visual and printed Turkish Media. (sources; http://ekonomi.haberturk.com/etiket/alphan_manas , http://www.alphanmanas.com/?p=2365&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter)
Like a week ago we have seen, also here in a post, that his collague and Co-Owner of Brightwell, Zamier Ahmed was seen with Victor Muller at We are many, We are Saab in Holland. We know what it was all about. From this point of view we can take these guys and Brightwell seriously as oppose to some who say they are fake.
According to the news that came up lately at Turkish media, their plan is to keep current production in Trollhättan but later to invest in Turkey in terms of electrical vehicles for Saab, ofcourse if they are able to take over the company hopefully.
We will be able to hear some more serious news in two weeks, Alphan Manas says, let’s see.
kochje said on January 27, 2012
Keep us informed when you see serious announcements in the Turkish press.
orion said on January 26, 2012
As long as GM is “partner” in this deal, which i believe will be a problem, the Turkish thinks to overcome by this agreement, i’m not satisfied. GM is not to be trusted, not for the first en secound time (quoting Angelo V), nor will they be in the furure.
tmra said on January 27, 2012
Unlike china and india, gm has no rivals in turkey for that matter. And also if brightwell succeeds, they are gonna be backed up by turkish government.
ivo 71 said on January 27, 2012
I have read in Turkish media that the Turkish government goes with Koc Group to try and create a national Turkish car brand. There have been even -unconfirmed- stories about Saab assembly lines to be set up in Koc’s current Fiat assembly plant in Turkey to produce cars of that new national brand.. Do you think the government would also support Brightwell as well in saving a Swedish brand? They seem to have said that there are no plans in that direction. Or would the support perhaps only apply to an electric vehicle effort?
Ivo
tmra said on January 27, 2012
Well Koc (a giant corporation also in Europe) and FIAT came up with the idea to produce purely local Turkish branded car. As we know the Turkish Government is very keen about Turkey having its own national car brand. So if Fiat and Koc gets serious, no wonder they will get huge help form the government. But their plans doesnt apply for Saab. Koc stated that they are not interested in Saab.
Brightwell ofcourse is aware of the fact that if they are able to take over Saab, the government will be behind them in many ways.
ivo 71 said on January 27, 2012
And the 64.000 dollar question is: in what ways? If they go with Koc/Fiat, will there be any money coming to the BH/Saab effort as well? Because Saab isn’t and never will be a Turkish brand, even if owned by a Turkish holding.
Ivo
tmra said on January 27, 2012
I dont think there is a limitation in terms of any support. Turkish PM is very serious about that and definetely will support any kind of progress. Not the government itself but the whole country is very romantic about the issue. If Koc/FIAT make it through, this does not mean BH/Saab will fail for support.
In the big picture if BH succesfully takes over Saab, it will become a Turkish entity, at least in Turkey, no matter what. For example Renault Clio is built by a factory in Turkey, but it is called a French car, same will apply for Saab. Cars will be built in Sweden but in Turkey, they will call it Turkish. So this way Saab brand will get a huge tax discount. (which in Turkey is the highest in EU, forex; a BMW 520D costs 100.000EURO) People are already very excited with the idea, and probably they will buy Saabs eyes wide shut with this tax discount.
ivo 71 said on January 27, 2012
Thanks foor your info. Sounds good, if it materializes.
Ivo
phermansson said on January 26, 2012
They now say on TV that Brightwell are coming to Trollhättan within a week. They seem confident in what they do because they work tightly with Muller on this.
DanSaab said on January 26, 2012
+1
Thanks to We Are Many, We Are Saab and that they work with Muller, i think this might turn out good
tmra said on January 27, 2012
Victor Muller, Zamier Ahmed and Alphan Manas met up in London for talks at this passed this weekend. They also signed this confidentiality agreement there. Source; Twitter, local press.
orion said on January 26, 2012
I think the Turkish will be smashed by Chinese money. The Chinese have so much to lose, they won’t let this happen, i guess. The Chinese bid will be one without any interference from GM, which means no more 9-4x’s and 9-5′s. That is so sad, so from an emotionally point of view, i hope the Turkish will winn, but the GM-thing, bothers me!
CSD_ChineseSaabDriver said on January 26, 2012
YM’s evil plan 1: take over Saab and screw GM.
YM’s evil plan 2: take over GM and bye bye GM.
tmra said on January 27, 2012
As bankruptcy lawyers stated that they are willing to sell Saab as a whole, not a platform or some parts separated. So this way brightwell and mahindra are a step further ’cause GM is already shut the doors down for chinese but not for the other yet. This fact also told by Brightwell CEO who is very positive about GM issue.
Angelo V. said on January 27, 2012
GM can only shut the doors down where their licensing/techology is needed. The Chinese think they have a way to produce the 9-3 without GM involved—-cutting Government Moochers out of the equation. If that’s true, YM is still very much in the thick of things.
tmra said on January 27, 2012
I don’t know if you had the chance to follow the press conference of bankruptcy lawyers this passed weekend. They underlined the statement very clearly; that they will sell the company as a whole. Not some platforms seperately. So this means YM or anyone else can not only take care of just Phoenix or 9-3 platforms. The newbie has to buy all production included GM rooted platforms.
I know it is a bad news but YM is a kind of miracle. Brightwell and Mahindra are far more lucky.
Bytheway Brightwell CEO has said a TV(http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=JShLgTDGe3M) that they might be able to work together hand in hand with YM or Mahindra if they can not deal themselves with the process. So we might also see a weird joint-venture…
In two weeks, this dream will take shape, lets hope it does in a good way.
Rune said on January 27, 2012
That the receivers would dictate what products the new owners would produce is something I fail to understand.
Especially when GM has publicly stated they will refuse everyone. (Personally I believe GM can once more be talked into a more reasonable solution, but I think the receivers cannot bank on such hopes)
The receivers’ hands are tied. They will have to consider less-than-perfect options. Time is running out as we speak.
My personal favorites are Mahindra, Brightwell and Youngman — in that order. I think we should increase public pressure on GM (to restore Saab’s access to the 9-5 license), and IMO the chances of success with such a campaign would increase having a non-Chinese company as the owner.
It is even more important to put up a good fight as hope dwindles.
Angelo V. said on January 27, 2012
+1, +9000
I don’t get it. If the stubborn ass that is GM isn’t playing ball, why do the receivers insist that they have to be included in the game? Basically, that’s a suicide mission for Saab. GM might not approve those platforms for ANYBODY. That being the case—-can’t the company be sold in its entirety, MINUS the GM components that GM won’t allow to transfer anyway? This makes no sense. It smells of something corrupt. Seems like the fix is in????
Angelo V. said on January 27, 2012
Also, if the receivers deny someone like Youngman because GM makes fake overtures that they might go along with Brightwell—-what happens when GM makes a U-Turn at the 11th hour and the deal falls apart—-and Youngman’s deal is off the table at that point? Or if Youngman comes back with a lowball offer at that point (which would be very understandable)? This is why I maintain that the receivers should be focused like a laser on the best possible situation for Saab—-the best chance of success, long term—-assuming GM will NOT participate. Because frankly, GM has shown that they will NOT participate. If they blow this, I’m not sure if it will be stupidity or corruption that explains it. Thousands of jobs are at stake, along with consumer concerns.
David-SAAB said on January 27, 2012
I agree. YM have invested too much already. Their bid will no doubt come soon.
Things are going to get very fast very soon as opposed to the actions of late!
Griffin Up!!
Angelo V. said on January 27, 2012
Wow, you make a compelling argument—-but long term, I don’t know if the Turkish group can make a go of this. We might be back at our keyboards, typing the same exact things, in two years. With the Chinese—-at least currently—-the money runs deep. They will have a commitment that is extremely strong and deep rooted. Personally, I think Mahindra makes the most sense….but that’s a whole other story.
zippy said on January 26, 2012
Don’t the Chinese know the meaning of the word NO or have I missed something?
CSD_ChineseSaabDriver said on January 26, 2012
YM is going to kick out GM, only goes for PhoeniX.
So nothing about NO.
Angelo V. said on January 27, 2012
They plan to produce the 9-3 until the PhoeniX is ready. They say they can do it without Government Moochers involved in it.
dcpattie said on January 26, 2012
The NG 9-5 must live on! Yesterday, I took my 2010 NG 9-5 Aero to the car wash and got behind a 2011 535i. It was one of those car wash facilities where your car rests on a conveyor belt as you watch from the inside. I know looks are 100% subjective but the 9-5 Aero just blew the doors off the Bimmer. Not even close and the owner of the BMW was so envious. As a typical BMW owner he asked if I liked my “Jag” (eyes rolled).
Chris Carrier said on January 27, 2012
Same here. There is no car that I don’t pull next to that I would trade for (unless I were able to sell it and buy another 9-5). Yeah, I’m not objective but why not love your car that much?
kochje said on January 27, 2012
+1; same feelings here with me.
saabboy1 said on January 27, 2012
+1. I have the same car and I totally agree with you.. I can’t stand the thought of even getting in another car other than a Saab.
saabsideways said on January 27, 2012
You wash your car in an automated car wash !
dezzer said on January 27, 2012
i know…i was disgusted too !!!
dcpattie said on January 27, 2012
“soft cloth”
Jon Davidson said on January 29, 2012
Yea a car wash
use a microfibre cloth and a bucket of hot water with car shampoo finished off with a good rinse and a chamois leather.
I have mine on a 3 year contract hire with 20 months left and can not see me driving any other car I look every day on the motorway (interstate) and there is nothing with the character of these cars Saab are simply one of a kind and really need to be kept going, unfortunately I am not sure there are enough potential new owners out there if the brand is resurrected , lets hope there are I for one dont want any other car.
Carlo A said on January 27, 2012
It is finally moving ……….. fingers crossed !!!
Griffin Up !!!
100%Saab said on January 27, 2012
Yes, but the question is: Who is going to be the first with the most?
Thylmuc said on January 27, 2012
Brightwell’s concepts are rather obscure at the moment.
-all other investments they had made so far went into small, rather unknown companies. They probably would need to raise more funds for Saab than for all other investments hitherto combined.
The principle behind Brightwell appears to be applying business practices to some rotten companies to streamline them before selling them of with profit, like optimising management, firing workforce, getting ridcof unprofitable sectors etc. That is something Muller already started. I wonder how much more they could actually do. I wonder how big their experience is in re-establishing buyers’ trust and defining desirable products. They have not been in the business of selling to emotionally controlled end users.
-finally, we must again note that there is no such thing as a competitive electrical car, and there won’t be without further scientific breakthroughs. To base a billion dollar aquisation on such a vague concept would be risky at least.
kochje said on January 27, 2012
I recommend you read the strategic plan and directions of the Brightwell group.
ivo 71 said on January 27, 2012
I think he has, as have I. And my own conclusions don’t differ much from Thylmuc’s. The takeover by Brightwell would probably have to be a leveraged one which could well result in a situation similar to today’s problems after a while. Also, their turnaround experience doesn’t include much in the way of automotive business, let alone big automotive business.
I believe that an acquisition of Saab by an automotive-orientated buyer would still be preferable to assure Saab’s future as a carmaker. But, whatever happens, the new buyer will have to be some entity with seriously deep pockets of their own, otherwise a. the receivers wouldn’t sell to them and b. they couldn’t invest additional funds into developing Saab after acquisition.
Ivo
kochje said on January 27, 2012
So we need to count on the realism of the administrators.
ivo 71 said on January 27, 2012
Jep. But can we?
Ivo
Alex740 said on January 27, 2012
Well this is good news but I can’t shake my bad feelings about an investor group. Fingers still crossed for Mahrinda or Youngman
JerseySaab said on January 27, 2012
Obviously any safe haven at this point will be welcome! But I also am uneasy about an investor group buying up the company, as well as Brightwell’s focus on so-called “green” technologies.
I don’t want to get into a political argument as this is not the place for it, but my own view of the environmental movement is probably somewhat less favorable than Jeremy Clarkson’s. As a practical matter, “green” products nearly always suffer in terms of price, durability, and functionality compared to their conventional counterparts and do not sell well in the absence of State-imposed coercion. (We have seen time and time again green products, technologies, and companies fail in the marketplace. It’s nothing new, we went through this cycle 40 years ago. Solyndra is one of the most recent examples.) In particular electric vehicles will never be competitive until battery technology makes a quantum leap.
I would hate to see Saab revived only to quickly crash and burn again in a failed attempt to bring unwanted and uncompetitive products to market.
Markac said on January 27, 2012
I wish Brightwell good luck. But I’m guessing that GM will continue to be an obstructionist to any buyer and buyers will have to work around it.
fuzzi said on January 27, 2012
why is Brightwell so confident to obtain the IP rights from GM ?
is the US government implicated because Turkey is an important Nato partner ?
tmra said on January 27, 2012
Because GM has no rivals in Turkey for their platforms in Saab. There is no a reason that makes sense that GM blocks a Turkish bid.
JerseySaab said on January 27, 2012
GM is a government-owned enterprise managed by knuckleheads. They don’t need a sensible reason beyond being fearful of any possible competition, and indeed have publicly announced their intention to not license any of their technology to company that purchases Saab.
Any prospective new owner of Saab will need to plan for a GM-free launch. Youngman appears to understand this now, hopefully that is the case with the other suitors as well.
tmra said on January 27, 2012
There is no other way unless GM says so. YM’s understanding is that they only want the phoenix and GM-free 9-3 platforms which is a bad idea for the bankruptcy lawyers as they stated.
I dont know really know about India but GM has no problem against a possible Turkish bid. Ofcourse we will see what will happen when they face…
But i would also like to say that Turkey is the biggest ally of USA in the region.
Angelo V. said on January 27, 2012
GM will pull the plug on any deal that uses GM technology—-at the last minute—-regardless of who, what or where. They don’t want a company in business selling cars named Saab. This has to happen without GM. Look—-if miraculously, GM says they will bless a deal, and they put that in writing, great. But if we’re “counting on” GM to cooperate, we’re stupid. If Youngman has a business plan—and billions of dollars to enact it—-without GM—-that is just fine.
P said on January 27, 2012
Exactly.
Still not sure I trust YM.
tmra said on January 27, 2012
Latest news from Turkey; Brightwell CEO told that Chinese and Indians are trying to buy 50.1% shares of Hemfosa which owns all Saab’s lands. This strategic game will bay each other, he claims.
Thylmuc said on January 27, 2012
Boy, now this starts to sound like war. Reminds me a bit of the situation with Rolls Royce back then.
Whoever gets Hemfosa will essentially control the situation, no matter what the administrators want, right?
tmra said on January 27, 2012
Exactly, BH calls this bad play and unfair. The one who gets Hemfosa will start the game at least 1-0.
baas900i said on January 27, 2012
ultimately saab will prosper on a strong dealer network…. dealers sell cars… advertising gets people into the showroom…. here in australia saab have not got a chance because the dealer network is so limited…. warranty is poor when compared with skoda, subaru, renault…. we so much want saab to prosper but it is more than having a white knight ride in….
Dejjo said on January 27, 2012
Where is youngmans bid??
Simply9-5 said on January 27, 2012
I was starting to wonder that too..
TonymacUK said on January 27, 2012
Me too.
Red J said on January 27, 2012
Next Monday, Youngman is flying to Stockholm, this time even Rachel’s father will be there.
CSD_ChineseSaabDriver said on January 27, 2012
In Chinese it is called: 志在必得 (MUST GET IT)
CSD_ChineseSaabDriver said on January 27, 2012
And of course with a big bunch of cash to throw on the table
It will be a piss off contest to show who got the real BIG money.
CSD_ChineseSaabDriver said on January 27, 2012
And I am afraid it is in fact a 1 billion euro vs 0 zero game.
Like NSC there is no money at all.
xelav said on January 27, 2012
What does tmra means? You are verry pro brightwell , i hope their intensions are real to keep Saab in sweden, but i have serious doubts about that. I hope the receivers are awake.
tmra said on January 27, 2012
Its a mixture of letter of my name and surname
I was following saabsunited.com for a long time as a Saab fan, but lately i felt like updating you guys about the news that are going around in Turkish press and side as not much of you aware of.
Well the main idea of Brightwell interested in Saab, its name and Turkish desire to have their own national brand. They say that they will for sure keep the plant in Sweden running, but ofcourse they will build some new ones in Turkey.
saaburban said on January 27, 2012
i want to make à case for M&M.
Facts:
Looking at the china (geely-Volvo) case compared to to the indian option (Tata-jaguar), indian companies are generally better funded, less gov involvment and English as a working language. India is offcourse the largest democracy in the world compared to communist china.
Angelo V. said on January 27, 2012
I just think Mahindra is a better fit—-they have U.S. specked trucks to sell, now—-and if they were to win the bid, they could move quickly to re-certify those trucks for U.S. sale and hopefully sell 9-3s without GM in the mix—-keeping dealers alive until Saab can develop a new car. Also, some Mahindra cars might be candidates to be sold under the Saab nameplate if they were to be partially restyled and given better handling/running gear (i.e. Saabaru 9-2).
Red J said on January 27, 2012
rebranding M&M’s as Saabs is a joke, isn’t t?
Angelo V. said on January 27, 2012
Red J: No, not a joke. If Saab has any chance of surviving, they are going to have to become a full line carmaker. I guess “rebranding” a Mahindra car is a stretch—-but certainly, at the entry level, taking a platform and re-engineering it, restyling it—-might not be a bad way to get something to market quickly. If the idea is to offer two model lines at $35,000 and up, any glee from a sale of Saab will be very short lived. Been there, done that. I don’t care how great Saab makes their next cars—–if they are selling two models from 35-50K, they’ll be out of business again in two years after they begin selling them. They need a broader offering of cars—-starting in the very low 20s, US, for a small car. They can make all the expensive cars they want to—-compete with Bentley for all I care—-but if there isn’t an entry level car and value leader among them, they’re dead again, pronto, even if they survive now.
Red J said on January 27, 2012
Yes, but, rebranding an Indian car as Saab is not the best way of doing it. I’m with you, that they need a smaller car with a smaller price, but maybe there are other ways of doing it.
Angelo V. said on January 27, 2012
http://www.zigwheels.com/news-features/news/mahindra-shows-off-the-ssangyong-range-at-2012-auto-expo/11182/1
Mahindra purchased Ssang Yong (A company who was going to export to the U.S. a few years ago). Check out the link. They have a lot more than this—-and remember, something is going to be needed extremely quickly. Saab engineers make lemonade out of lemons. They’ve done it before…
Red J said on January 27, 2012
Angelo, I’ve seen the Ssaang Yong cars, and I repeat myself, I don’t know the US, but in Europe Saab would sell 0 rebranded M&M’s.
Angelo V. said on January 28, 2012
I haven’t seen them in person or driven them, so you might be right. But I will say, there was a time, not long ago, when the overwhelming majority of “experts” said that Hyundai/Kia would never sell many cars in the U.S. They are now the fastest growing brands here.
davidgmills said on January 28, 2012
Like Angelo said, Saab has a habit of making lemonade out of lemons. Korean cars have gotten very structurally sound and they just need some “tweaking.” But at the right price point they would sell. Even Europe needs cheap cars. Maybe especially Europe. And Mahindra would be a good fit for the US — Youngman definitely not and probably not Turkey either.
But time is a “waistin” and American dealers are quickly going down after being ignored by Swan.
saabyurk said on January 27, 2012
Brightwell has their own platform, developed by a company they own, according to DI. They indicate they will use it if GM says no to licensing theirs. Who could that be?
Also, good news, SvD is reporting the debt office has paid off the EIB. The EIB can no longer say yes or no to a sale.
P said on January 27, 2012
http://www.just-auto.com/news/brightwell-to-make-saab-engineer-statement-shortly_id119641.aspx
Allan B said on January 27, 2012
That is a very encouraging story. Feel more upbeat about this now than I have for weeks. And if they can find a way to stop rain leaking through a 9-3ss rear door into the footwell into the bargain it will be a true Turkish delight.
ivo 71 said on January 28, 2012
This is just about the first real sign of tangible interest on BH part. I’m also quite happy with their statement that they want to maintain and continue production in Trollhättan AND, as written earlier by a Turkish SU member, add production facilities in Turkey for an electric Saab. Also, if the Turkish government would actually support the acquisition by, a.o., granting import tax abatements to Swedish-produced Saabs as well then Brightwell would, in my view anyway, jump straight to the top spot on the contender ladder, always provided that BH can come up with the funds for both the buy-out and the required operational and development capital. But if they are already trying to keep Saab employees from accepting work elsewhere and encouraging them to stay with Saab then I guess the Brightwell effort could really turn out to be THE one we all are looking for. And if they can get GM to co-operate re. the 9-5 and 9-4, even more so.
I’m willing to bet that that bit about the staff being the most important asset comes straight from the mouth of Victor Muller. He used almost literally the same sentence in his speech at the Dutch Jan. 15th WAM WAS rally.
Ivo
Red J said on January 28, 2012
Didn’t Mr. Ahmed also visit the Dutch Jan 15th WAM WAS rally invited by Mr. Muller?
ivo 71 said on January 28, 2012
Yes. He accompanied Victor Muller in the car VM arrived in (a Swedish-registered NG 9-5) but didn’t show himself in public. The info only emerged afterwards, released by one of the organizers of the rally. Mr. Ahmed’s presence there has meanwhile been confirmed by others.
Ivo