TTela snippets
January 27, 2012 in News
Today, ttela.se has published three interesting Saab-related articles. The first is an interview with Swade, as he spent the last week in Sweden to say farewell to friends and, this is my impression, to the Saab factory.
The article is well written, but the title is a little bit confusing.
“I have given up hope”
Because of that Swade has written a clarification on his own blog Swadeology.
And this is what he says about the title of this article.
This is not referring to Saab. People who read further into the article will see that I personally do not hold any great hopes of working for Saab again myself, which is the situation the headline should refer to.
I wanted to transport this clarification to Saabsunited, because he is a (the) very important person in the Saab community and I don’t want that people start spreading rumours about him here.
It looks like TTela has noticed the misunderstanding, and today they have updated the article with some footage of the interview.
The second one is about Riksgälden (NDO) and EIB. The Swedish national debt office has paid back Saab’s EIB loan. Why have they done it now?
The prerequisite for the EIB to grant the loan to Saab Automobile was the Swedish government gave its guarantee to pay if the situation was such that it could not repay. When Saab went into bankruptcy Debt Office began the administrative procedure prior to the payment to the EIB.
The good thing about this is that no prospect owner of Saab will have to negotiate any matter with the EIB, which was quite complicated in 2011. The bad thing is, Saab Parts AB and Saab Tool AB where the collateral for that loan, which means that NDO could seek out its claims, splitting those two companies from Saab Automobile. But for the time being, they want to endorse the sale of the whole Saab Automobile as one packet.
The question of a sale is among the receivers. We are for a sale of the whole and have not had occasion to reconsider this view.
And after hearing many things about Brightwell, now is time for Youngman once again.
According to ttela.se Youngman will be in Stockholm on monday to meet the receivers. This time not only Rachel Pang coming to Sweden, her father pang Quingnian is also coming to Sweden, which shows that this meeting is more important for Youngman this time.
—
I don’t want to be arrogant, but I want to say something about the Turkish press. I remember the articles in the Russian press saying that Saab did belong to Mr. Antonov, and articles in the Chinese press saying that Youngman owned the phoenix platform. China and Russia are proud nations and the national press did exaggerate some aspects of the Saab deals. Well I’m getting the impression that the Turkish press is also being a little bit too optimistic about Brightwell and Saab.
Smithy said on January 27, 2012
All I can think of when I hear Mahindra, is how incredible today’s Jaguars are! Indian ownership might be the essential thing for Saab, but Youngman has been committed for a longer period of time, even pre-investing, that does matter when concluding a deal.
Brightwell? Well, I really hope they know what they’re doing, they need the money and the “Griffin dedication”..
Over9000 said on January 28, 2012
Brightwell is certainly quite enthusiastic about the whole thing…
Iiari said on January 28, 2012
All of today’s incredible Jaguars were developed under Ford (as were all of today’s Volvos). We have yet to see a ground up Jaguar developed by Tata. Let’s see how it does (despite my tone, I think it’ll go just fine). Just saying…
CSD_ChineseSaabDriver said on January 27, 2012
Swade is a great Saab guy.
montahue said on January 29, 2012
Swade is a great guy generally.
ivo 71 said on January 29, 2012
Swade is great. Period.
Ivo
CSD_ChineseSaabDriver said on January 27, 2012
Turks are also a proud nation.
In fact I like Turkish people, and if BW got the deal, congrats, I will continue buying Saabs under Turkish flag.
But IMHO BW is no match against YM, YM not only has big money backed by local Chinese banks and funds, and they have a huge home market for Saabs.
montahue said on January 29, 2012
There are thousands Turkish people living in Sweden and if you count the Turkish Kurds (who might or might not consider them self Turkish) they are 100.000+ and its’s not a bad thing if this group of people also got all nationalistic about their choice of car.
CSD_ChineseSaabDriver said on January 28, 2012
and articles in the Chinese press saying that Youngman owned the phoenix platform
==
Chinese press didn’t say YM owns the PhoeniX platform, it only mentions that YM bought the rights to use PhoeniX.
And 99.99% of Chinese reports on YM and PD with Saab is NEGATIVE, they find it stupid to buy Saab, and in general there is no interests among Chinese car fans over Saab, because there is simply no people responding to the news reports over YM and Saab, while over other stuff a lot of replies.
BUT: YM is deadly SERIOUS, they are coming .. Next Week MONDAY
Things are turning GOOD for SAAB
CSD_ChineseSaabDriver said on January 28, 2012
And to make it clear:
YM buying Saab is the MOST smart thing to do, it is a great investment into a great brand, in long term it is a very good investment.
I wish YM very good luck.
青年必胜，马到成功，龙年大吉，加油！
ArchDandy said on January 28, 2012
+1
Chris Carrier said on January 28, 2012
Unless you’re one who put money into the most recent of Saab’s products, the 9-5 and 9-4 both of which will certainly disappear with Chinese ownership. Youngman is better than being broken up, certainly, but I have to root for an alternative that might just allow the 9-5 and 9-4 to continue. If Youngman does buy Saab, the could win me over by putting money at least to support parts and warranty for existing owners.
Angelo V. said on January 28, 2012
Chris: I’d rather see Mahindra, with their light truck line, buy Saab. They could sell Saabs and Mahindra trucks at the Saab dealers—-that’s more people in the showrooms and cross-selling for future purchases perhaps. But I have a feeling that the only way GM will license technology for the 9-4 and 9-5 is if the new owner doesn’t do business where GM does business. So counting on production of the 9-4 and 9-5 might be a losing cause. I hope I’m wrong—or I hope the deal is made without GM—-then later, they realize there’s money to be made by licensing, and they come back to the new owner with a proposal of their own. But trying to include GM at this point is counter-productive. I think the best idea is to assume they’re not going to be reasonable and build a business plan with the 9-3 (minus GM tech). I would hope that any new owner will keep goodwill by covering 2010 and 2011 Saabs though, the best they could.
saabyurk said on January 28, 2012
Youngman is my sentimental favorite, however, will his bid be held in limbo for 3 months by the NDRC like some reports say? I wonder if the receivers could accept a bid like that, no matter how good. I sure wish YM could have a prearranged NDRC approval.
JH said on January 28, 2012
This type of snippets is great, thanks Red J!
It will be an interesting week!
theSandySaab said on January 28, 2012
Is this developing into yet another roller coaster ride???
I start to feel excited for this possible turnaround, that maybe, just maybe there will be “Saab” cars again rolling out of a factory somewhere…Three weighty and seemingly genuinely interested parties that possibly could develop Saab, GM free…
So, I am finding my F5 for the nest weeks Saab news…
I certainly keep all available fingers crossed for a happy ending….and a new beginning!
ryanonsrc said on January 28, 2012
Well since Saab has fallen off the roller coaster tracks … once they are put back on the rails: the only direction to go is up!
A new beginning is on the horizon: Griffin Up folks!
tmra said on January 28, 2012
You are right Red J. The Turkish Press is almost eveyday making up some news about MH and Saab. Some of them are real some totally crap, as you have written optimistic. But in previous posts what i have written about the latests news are summaries all from the interviews with BH CEO first hand and some tweets he tweeted.
Vagabond said on January 28, 2012
I think B.H., Youngman and Mahindra, should form a conglomerate or company, and buy Saab, with each putting up 33 1/3%.
They would then be able to invest more. That would be the ideal thing, but of course it would never work out.
ivo 71 said on January 28, 2012
Well, a joint-venture could, in theory, work out quite well for everyone but I also doubt they could co-operate on an equal basis, also given the enormous cultural differences. Moreover, there is always GM lurking in the shadows, refusing to co-operate on the 9-5/9-4X issues because of, they say, the potential threat to their markets in China. And possibly India as well, even though they are only selling Chevywoos there and virtually no Buicks, Opels or other GM brands that would/could compete with the NG 9-5…).
Ivo
Angelo V. said on January 28, 2012
From another thread, written by “Jersey Saab:” “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.” Well said. Anyone familiar with the “Peanuts” cartoons knows that every time Lucy holds the football for Charlie Brown to kick it, she pulls it away at the last second and he falls on his ass. People: GM has the football. They are going to pull it away. Really, any serious suitor has to plan on life without GM. If GM ends up willing to license their technology, great. But we simply cannot count on that, no way, no how. They are not a trustworthy corporation. They lie.
100%Saab said on January 28, 2012
Expect GM to do only what GM thinks is in their best interest. Ultimately GM would like to say they paid the US Government and tax payers back. Don’t expect GM to do anything that they think will lose money.
Now having said that remember the credit crisis caused by greedy investors. (Need a car loan?) And, remember the spike in gas prices – call it manipulation. If you have a lot of cash you can afford to lose money for a while.
Also remember a US President who is pushing for more American jobs and a Swedish Government who did not do what the US Government did. Canada protected it’s auto manufacturing jobs but Sweden did not.
American Saab owners can remember exactly what their government did to help Saab. Swedish Saab owners should remember their own government’s help. Don’t expect anything from GM!
Just a thought.
Aero1 said on January 28, 2012
GM is not owned by the US Govt., they are just very large share holders, GM has paid some portion of what they owe, but have not and probably never will be held accountable for us the Taxpayers that GM still owes multiple $BILLIONS! GM is wholly run by a Cult of Non Humans!-(This purely speculation)
Chris Hansel said on January 28, 2012
I’m a taxpayer, and I very happy on how this investment has paid off to date. One million jobs saved. Sweden needs to think like Obama did. If your job was ( is ) on the line, would you have objected to a govt. loan? By the way, GM is run by human beings, not space aliens. Lets cut the hate speech down, remember, you are dishing your countrymen, not beings from another planet.
Aero1 said on January 28, 2012
More jobs were lost than you know, entire companies have failed=SAAB, towns have died-(Pontiac MI, Flint MI, etc.) because of GM, and this is pure truth and not hate nor am I dissing my countrymen- GM owes about $6 Billion and that is also fact, part of that is my $, which by the way was not handed to me for pure charity!!! It was earned!
JerseySaab said on January 28, 2012
I’m a taxpayer, and I am very unhappy about money being taken from me by force and given to a badly-run private company that was given special privileges/bailouts by two administrations.
This is a perfect example of government and big business in collusion to loot the citizenry. (Usually they are more discreet about it, this time it was done in plain view!) We have well-established laws and procedures for dealing with bankruptcy in this country, and these should have been followed. This is supposed to be a nation of laws, not of men.
I will never purchase any GM product, large or small, not only due to their treatment of Saab, but because I have already been coerced to hand over my hard-earned money to them over my objections and against my will.
Having been forced to pay for GM once I will certainly not volunteer to pay for them again.
(And yes, if it were my job on the line I most certainly would have objected to the GM bailout. I would not think it was “OK” to pick the pockets of my neighbors just to save my job, there are plenty of ways to make a living.)
Angelo V. said on January 28, 2012
I have the same feelings you do about buying GM in the future. I involuntarily gave money to them a couple years ago—-I doubt that I will now voluntarily give them more. But I guess if I worked there, had a family to feed—-I would have gone along with the heist. Sure, it’s charity from your neighbors, who couldn’t afford it themselves—-I guess that’s true—-but because of the way it was disguised, the guilt would be tempered a bit.
Angelo V. said on January 28, 2012
Chris: Why GM then? The same billions and billions could have been used to save a million jobs among small businesses in the U.S. that went under during the massive worldwide economic downturn. Thousands of small businesses laid people off or went out of business—-why not use the same money to help them, and let a giant corpration like GM, with mega-lawyers, go through normal bankruptcy proceedings to come out leaner? This was not about “saving jobs” it was about repaying political favors and setting up a campaign coffer for this election coming up. It’s money that gets recycled and sent back and forth.
Iiari said on January 28, 2012
Why? Because it’s about far more than just a company, it’s about the entire infrastructure needed to support an industry and, once that industry is gone, it’s NEVER COMING BACK. NEVER. Not in your or my lifetime… Think you’re going to live to see mainstream built American TV’s, for example? Nope, gone and never coming back.
This was totally about saving jobs AND saving the ability for America to be engaged in an entire industry. I have no love for GM either, but I think it was the right move.
Your politically tinged posts are getting tiresome at SU and now here too. You want to be a right-wing nut? Fine, but keep it to yourself or call into talk radio, or else all of these forums will devolve into pointless political bickering.
Angelo V. said on January 29, 2012
This IS SU, (isn’t it?). You’re entitled to your opinion that it was the right move to bailout GM and Chrysler—-I’m also entitled to my opinions. I try to stay on topic but I do respond to others. Political decisions are at the heart of how large corporations are run. Big corporations (as well as their unions) support political candidates on both sides (unions, generally on one side but corporations can and do go both ways). Get used to it. It’s all intertwined. If the discussion is about which modifications are the best for the 9-3 or what aftermarket tires give the best performance on Saabs, I doubt anyone will drag politics into it. If the discussion is about a corporation in bankruptcy—how they got there, who put them there, what they’re trying to do to emerge from it, who is impacting that, etc., there’s a 100% chance politics are involved and there’s a good chance it will come up in the discussion. My posts were generally negative toward GM. If that’s political because they were saved by an administration with help from another (two different political parties I might add), so be it. My “politically tinged” posts haven’t “devolved” to name-calling against other people posting here, like yours just did. Finally, I don’t believe letting General Motors go through bankruptcy without billions of dollars from taxpayers would have resulted in the end of the automobile industry in the U.S. I don’t even think it would have resulted in the end of GM, who could have emerged with less legacy issues than they have now (carried over BECAUSE of the nature of the bailout). They also could have had real independence in how they conduct business as opposed to interference from their saviors. If it WAS an end for GM, it would have been great news for Ford, wouldn’t it? Also, foreign owned companies are building multi-million dollar plants in the U.S., employing thousands of Americans in good paying jobs, with good working conditions and great products. Those factories are being built and expanded as I write this. Industry is alive and well. TV sets? I guess Zenith was the last one mass producing here, probably in the late 70s? What should we have done to save that industry—-would love to know.
Vagabond said on January 28, 2012
GM has totally degenerated now that they’re partially run by the present US Administration..My opinion only
saabdog said on January 28, 2012
Right on Vagabond. GM is a political entity, not a business. The debacle with the Volt is just one example of how politics drives their business. As long as they have access to an almost “unlimited” amount of taxpayer money, there’s no incentive to make decisions based on market reality. I predict the bankruptcy specter will visit GM again in the future. But maybe with a new administration, a real bankruptcy reorganization based on the constitution will guarantee that GM’s bond holders will get their due, instead of a handover of the company to the unions, forcing bondholders to take pennies on the dollar for their investments.
Angelo V. said on January 28, 2012
Both of you are right on target. GM is only around in their current form because of political reasons/political timing. They were propped up with billions upon billions of taxpayer dollars and were not forced (some would say not allowed) to shed the enormous led weights that helped drag them down to begin with. They will fail again….not a matter of “if” but a matter of “when.” Again, depending on who is in power, they might be propped up the same way they were in 2009 or next time, they might not be. Political entity. I have to remember that one.
Saabo said on January 28, 2012
I have been sceptical about a Chinese ownership and an initial line up without the 9-5 and 9-4, mainly because I do not think that the old 9-3 would reach any volumes again here in Europe, specially not here in Sweden (even though the latest Griffin version seems to be competitive if sold to a lower price).
But looking at the picture once again I realise that if YM wins the bidding they would have acces to the large chinese market, and that could mean volumes that would be enough for 2-3 years before the next generation “Griffins”, without GM genes, hits the market. If YM has the financial muscles that the rumours says then this would be a possible way to go, and perhaps easier than trying to convince GM to let Saab/YM do the 9-5/9-4 again. I am only an engineer so the economical stuff are not my buisness but this might actually work out…
Maybe, just maybe, the sun are rising again…
Angelo V. said on January 28, 2012
The thing I find ironic/amusing through all of this is the idea of deals being stopped because of “GM Technology” being held back. I get it—-I understand the licensing and how the GM tech is embedded in Saab’s newest products. But the funny part is that historically, GM has been anything but a technology leader. More irony is that they sort of did what they accuse the Chinese of doing—-take someone else’s technology and run with it in their own form or hire people from smaller automakers, who were developing better technology. I read in Lee Iacocca’s autobiograhpy that back in the 60s and 70s, Chrysler was the envy of the other automakers because of their engines. Lee was with Ford at the time, not Chrysler. It was generally felt that their engine family was better than anything Ford or GM were doing. I’ve heard the same thing about Ford automatic transmissions. Ironically, the GM “breakthroughs” ended up smothered by their own bean-counter mentality. They dabbled in superchargers, turbos, even had airbags on a car in the early 1970s—-and we know they had the electric car before the Prius—-but they never had the guts to see these things through to commercial success. They were not “leaders” in technology and now—-suddenly—-they won’t license their precious “technology” to Saab, to save the company. Another example is front wheel drive, on the 1966 Oldsmobile Toronado. GM fans point to that and say “We had front wheel drive—-not just Saab had it.” True enough. But it was a boutique product—and expensive car (like the Cadillac Eldorado) and the only FWD car I could think of in their line. By 1980, when they came out with the Chevy Citation—-they were acting as though front wheel drive was some new sensantion—-advertising the new Citation, with front wheel drive for better road holding in snow, better space inside the car, etc. What schmucks.
saaburban said on January 28, 2012
Mahindra + Youngman= SAAB
Give the chinese an entry to India, and give the Indians an opening to china and use Saab to enter the rest of the world.
Add Saab technology, neutral development center in trollhattan.
Add a western premium branding, with Asian investments.
That’s what I call a business plan
Iiari said on January 28, 2012
“I have given up hope” I don’t think is an inflammatory tagline at all. I mean, given the current situation, how can one have not? I mean, I have given up hope myself:
- I have given up hope a NG 9-3 will be available in time to replace my Turbo-X. Not happening…
- I have given up hope that even if such a car magically appeared that I would be able to buy it from an excellent local Saab dealer (mine being Shaw Saab, which is closing Feb 3rd to become a Lexus dealer).
- I have given up hope that I will be able to have my current car serviced at that dealer and will now need to go about finding another (before they inevitably close).
- I have given up hope that the parts I’m waiting for will be available before Summer…
- I have given up hope that the Swedish government would show an ounce of sense or that Saab workers or residents of Western Sweden would show some fight, protest, or resistence against this…
- I have given up hope that YM, Brightwell, or any suitor has any good intentions of maintaining the Saab we care about, as all those suitors (YM especially) have sat by and allowed the worldwide distribution networks to be dismantled (especially in the key US and UK markets), bringing ENORMOUS doubt in my mind as to what they really care about (hint: it’s really about building a home market automaker more quickly). I mean, if you wanted to buy Saab, why would you care anymore if there are no dealers left to sell them and you have to start from scratch?
- I have given up hope that the Saab brand can be rapidly restored in the minds of the public given the fatal press of late and the fact the best case scenario is still producing Griffins at the factory… Who is buying those in 2013 or 2014? At what dealers, by the way?
The only thing I DO HAVE HOPE for is that a GM-less Saab can be purchased by one of the current suitors, use it to build home market success, and then relaunch around the world in 10-15 years. I’m imagining my next Saab in the US in the best case scenario will be a 2024 model. What other scenario is even realistic?
mnztr said on January 29, 2012
There are many SAAB dealers that have more then one brand. If the buyer is well financed, then I believe they will be very interested in resuming their relationship with the brand. There are many SAABs still on the road, and there is an opportunity to sell those drivers their next car. So even though the dealer network will be significantly smaller (I suspect by 40 or 50%) that will make the survivors more viable and create a good platform for future growth. If they can save it, I think it will ALL depend on the next generation 9-3. If that car is fantastic.. then game on. If it sucks….then SAAB will finally die.
Joseph said on January 29, 2012
Hey guys I was wondering if Youngman owns the Phoenix platform. I thought I read on here that they didn’t yet I see a few stories online that say that they have. If there’s been an article on here that explains it could you please send me a link? Thanks.
ivo 71 said on January 29, 2012
No, they don’t. What they bought is the right (license) to use the Phoenix platform to build cars on. The platform itself is still the intellectual property of Saab and included in the sale of the bankrupt company. The stories you allude to originate in China and are more like wishful thinking.
Ivo