James Cain does it again

Today we were again faced with some statements from James Cain regarding GM and their stance towards the parties that are interested in Saab (from E24.se):

Our contact with Brightwell consisted only of several letters they sent with requests to start a discussion. We answered that we are not interested. It has never been any negotiations or discussions, he said.

TT: Why did you not agree to meet them?

– We stand by our policy not to sell technology licenses to a new owner for Saab.

TT: Not in any way?

– No.

TT: Typically in business, everything has a price tag.

– Not in this case, says James Cain.

TT: Can you describe why GM does not want to give Saab a chance to survive?

– They have had several chances to survive. The business has been in terrible shape for a long time. That’s why GM, when we had our own problems, decided to close down Saab. It was not GM’s fault that Saab decided to stop paying their suppliers and their employees.

To make it short: I do not believe that. As I stated before he is a spokesman and his job is to tell the press what he is told. But there are always some things that are handled in certain levels of the management that don’t give reports to the press department about what they are doing. It is as simple as that. So you can’t even blame Mr. Cain for not knowing about everything, he is dependent on the info he gets. But what I really don’t like is the tone he uses from time to time. Maybe it is because GM did not like Brightwell openly stating that they were in talks. Maybe it is because Zamier once said “of course we are not negotiating with their spokesman”. But there are still better, more professional ways of stating something than the way he did. If GM wants to keep things behind closed doors I can repect that but if you want to deny do it in a proper way.

We at SU have been in contact with Brightwell and honestly I see no reason why they should have lied about GM. They put huge effort in this and noone spends some millions into something like that just for fun. They believed in Saab and had a very interesting and serious plan how to bring Saab back to life. And obviously they got quite far with GM up to a certain point.

It was pretty clear that we had to say goodbye to one or the other party at a certain point of this process and we still have a few in there, so there is no need to panic. Still it is sad to see Brightwell leave that soon.

As I already stated yesterday my belief in this is that GM found another party who fits them better or has more to offer. And that is not only meant in terms of money. There are other benefits that GM could like even more. In China they are facing a market that is more and more driven to suit the local brands. In Europe they still got their problems with Opel. So whether they like it or not they need some partners in certain fields to protect the main interest of their shareholders: to keep going and head into the future without facing a 2009 deja vu.

I know that not all of you may follow my arguments in this and there is a lot of personal view in here. But we have learned to be pretty critical towards GM. So why should I take James Cain’s words for the only everlasting truth?

Digging into his last sentence I would even want to correct him an bit. GM decided to sell Saab due to their own problems and the wind down decision only came because they could not agree with Spyker in time. Or should I take this a a freudian slip that tells me GM’s initial general intention was to close down Saab? I think I would not go that far but it could make one think.

On the other hand as a prove for GM’s goodwill he reveals another thing:

James Cain now reveals that GM was in favor of the Russian financier Vladimir Antonov, who is suspected of financial crimes, if he would have gone in with money.

– We had an agreement that had allowed him to invest in the company, but it did not succeed.

But that is another story…

Eric
Member
4 years 6 months ago

This makes me sick of GM, again.
Unless they resurrect Pontiac, I have no desire to buy a new car from them in the future. GM’s behavior is disgusting in this matter of Saab.

I hope BMW buys them & GM’s stake is dissolved, with new Saabs coming out in about 4yrs. F GM!!

Eric
Member
4 years 6 months ago

B/c BMW wouldn’t need GM’s licensing in the first place.

What is this “they have had several chances to survive” crap??
GM neglected Saab like they did some of their other brands like Pontiac as well as mismanaged them.

RS
Member
4 years 6 months ago

The ”several chances of survival” slip is simply outrageous.

With a 12 year old 9-5, no new hatchbacks in 14 years, delayed models, engine restrictions, downgraded interiors, the wind down in 09 -killing many Saab suppliers, letting VM run around China for 6 months to make deals with new investors that would never be accepted by them etc. etc. GM gave plenty of opportunity to for Saab to make it. Yeah right!

Belfast_Saab
Member
4 years 6 months ago

+1

hans h
Member
4 years 6 months ago
There is room for media to dig in that “delayed models, engine restrictions, downgraded interiors”-pile you are mentioning. Why was Saab-engines never allowed to be more powerful than Opel’s? And all this while GM tried to position Saab *above* Opel. Mindboggling!!! GM is sinking. Now that Saab is gone, they are blaming Opel for everything bad that happens to them. My guess is that Vauxhall as a brand is gone in the near future, now that Daewoo-Chevrolet are being sold in Europe. Opel might follow soon after. Perhaps not as factories and development base, but as a brand. GM is… Read more »
OliverH
Member
4 years 6 months ago

Oh dear. That would be black Friday on top gear. Looking forward to see the special event at top gears.
I’m wondering since years why they run ahead with vauxhall branded Opels for the UK and Opel brand for rest of Europe.

ivo 71
Member
4 years 6 months ago

Because of the supposed patriotism of UK car buyers. They think Britons prefer a car carrying an old British badge and assembled in the UK over the same car with a German badge and assembled in Germany.

Ivo

Red J
Member
4 years 6 months ago

Which Vauxhall is being assembled in the UK?

I thought all the Insignias were assembled in Rüsselsheim.

mikaik
Member
4 years 6 months ago

Wasn’t the Astra produced in Ellesmere Port? Unless they shut it down already.

spacy
Guest
4 years 6 months ago

Isn’t that the plant JLR recently took over?

ivo 71
Member
4 years 6 months ago

Luton and Ellesmere Port. See here for a map of all car assembly plants in the world (not exactly sure how recent the map is as THN is still on it as a GM facility): http://www.autonews.com/assets/PDF/CA590251125.PDF

Ivo

TonymacUK
Member
4 years 6 months ago

+ another

Angelo V.
Member
4 years 6 months ago

+95

enor
Member
4 years 6 months ago

Pontiac, Chevrolet, what’s the difference? That’s really hard for a European to understand. They have always been made side by side and have always been almost identical twins anyway….

Eric
Member
4 years 6 months ago
GM had a brand ladder(or planned obsolescence). Which was created under Alfred Sloan back in the early 20th century & were as follows: Cadillac Buick Oldsmobile Pontiac Chevrolet Later on…Geo & Saturn were under Chevrolet. Of course Saab was in the mix too along w/Hummer. In the late 50’s & through the 60’s, Pontiac got a performance image starting w/the GTO. It is what Pontiac’s heritage has been known for but was neglected & moved largely away from after the 70’s. During the 80’s, Roger Smith, GM CEO heavily damaged Sloan’s brand ladder by giving all brands but GMC more… Read more »
mpprh
Member
4 years 6 months ago
I’m afraid that GM squandered their brand values. Chevrolet was the car for the working man who wanted a little more than Ford offered. Why Pickups, 4/4s, Corvette, etc ? GMC was supposed to be 4/4 pickups etc. Why did all the other brands have them too ? Cadillac was supposed to be the global ultimate driving machine. By the 1990’s it was floundering with no direction. FWD tanks v RWD Opels and average buyer age 69. Now improved, but struggles outside US. Pontiac was supposed to be the sporting car. That died when Delorean moved to Chevy. Why was… Read more »
Allan B
Member
4 years 6 months ago

Nice post mpprh.

The fact that Buick fell into neglect sums GM up. It was the cornerstone of that company, and its Scots-American founder David Dunbar Buick the inventor of the pushrod engine and the original V8. What an amazingly stupid, crass and – as we can see from the Marvellous Mr Cain – vindictive organisation it has turned out to be.

Amazing to think the degeneration set in at GM years before they had even heard of Saab, and yet GM keeps on going.

Down with General Moloch!

Angelo V.
Member
4 years 6 months ago

Saturn was never under Chevrolet nor were they sold in Chevrolet showrooms like GEO was. Saturn was an independent division, specializing in “import fighter” smaller cars. On average, the cars Saturn offered were more expensive than comparable Chevrolets.

TurboLover
Member
4 years 6 months ago

Well, look at the American cars from the sixties and into the beginning of the seventies. They were not the same and they had great design and new technology unt so weiter. Swedish Police had American cars in the sixties Plymoth Valiant (Chrysler, I know).
What was one of the coolest cars in the world when I was a child? Pontiac GTO!! Look at them (use google) from 1964-1974 epic cars!! Then they tried to wake the GTO name up again in 2004…. and… well… those cars didn’t do it for me at least…

ivo 71
Member
4 years 6 months ago

That late-day GTO was in fact a rebadged Holden Monaro. Not a bad car at all, actually. Top Gear loved it.

Ivo

Angelo V.
Member
4 years 6 months ago

It wasn’t a bad car, but the styling was as bland as bland can be—-and if flopped mightily. It should never, ever have worn the GTO badge.

Eric
Member
4 years 6 months ago

The last GTO didn’t do very well, b/c it didn’t have any relation to the GTO of the 60’s w/its exterior & wasn’t marketed correctly. But it did have the power that a GTO should have.

I will agree that Saturn was more of a Chevy alternative than under Chevy.
Saturn developed a loyal following. Some of the things that Saturn dealers were doing should have been done at the other GM brand dealers too, but weren’t.

Angelo V.
Member
4 years 6 months ago

When Saturns were produced in Spring Hill, Tennessee, they had a little cult following. They only sold them at sticker—-no “deals” which was a new way to sell cars in the U.S. The cars were boring but competent. As soon as they started producing new models in Delaware—-a UWA plant—-the charm was lost. The cars weren’t as good, the cult following fizzled out. GM really doesn’t get much right, do they?

Curvin ORielly
Member
4 years 6 months ago
I was creative director at the ad agency in San Francisco that did Saturn’s launch advertising in 1990. The advertising tagline (written before I arrived at the agency) was a perfect summary of GM’s intentions when it started Saturn – “A Different Kind Of Company, A Different Kind Of Car.” Saturn was a venture in which multiple parties – GM itself, the UAW, the company’s dealers – had equal votes when it came to making key decisions. The launch advertising, which became reasonably famous and also worked incredibly well, told the stories of Saturn “team members” (employees) who’d spent years… Read more »
Over9000
Member
4 years 6 months ago
I am a loyal follower. Of Saab, of course, but also of Saturn. They were good cars (My dad got 186,000 miles out of his 1994 SL1, and he still thinks that the engine failure was his fault). Then, GM had to sieze control. No GM brand can be original; that’s not how it’s done! So they took a bunch of garbage Opels and called them Saturns. We Saturn fans knew this, and then GM was surprised when we didn’t buy them. After all, who wouldn’t want a rebadged Opel sold under the Saturn name? So then, GM closed the… Read more »
TurboLover
Member
4 years 6 months ago

exactly!

Over9000
Member
4 years 6 months ago

Chevrolet and Pontiac were both terrible cars, but Pontiacs were better styled.

EuroDriver
Member
4 years 6 months ago

So now what? Is it truly the Endgame thats being played behind closed doors?

EuroDriver
Member
4 years 6 months ago

Not necessarily the end in a bad way.

Angelo V.
Member
4 years 6 months ago
Cain made a statement—-probably over a month ago, about the end of the 9-4. He was clear in his answer (at least as clear as they’d allow him to be) that it was over for the 9-4. Factory had broken down the tooling, no more 9-4s to be produced. Period. The end. Still, here on this forum, we (me included) continued to talk about a new owner resuming with the 9-4 (and 9-5). We’ve spent weeks talking about it since he made that statement. It’s like we intentionally (or maybe in our subconscience) repressed the information—-pretended we never heard his… Read more »
Rolf Hägg
Guest
4 years 6 months ago

Finally, someone talking some sense. I really wish the denial/begging posts would end.

900_S
Member
4 years 6 months ago

+1

Paul
Member
4 years 6 months ago

Well he’s basically saying to the public that the remaining Saab dealers need to offer some huge discounts on the 94. What’s the point of buying it if bodywork is going to be that hard to get?

ivo 71
Member
4 years 6 months ago

All you need to do is drive and park very very carefully to avoid dents and other accidents. Easy, innit?

Ivo

jouni72
Member
4 years 6 months ago

I think in some of the comments made by recievers yesterday You could get a feeling that there might be bid or bids with technology agreements. Hope it would be question about GM agreements I still want my 9-5 SC….

Coke is it
Member
4 years 6 months ago

And I still want my 9-5 SC.

Daniel B
Member
4 years 6 months ago

+1

TurboLover
Member
4 years 6 months ago

+1

mikaik
Member
4 years 6 months ago

And I think the 9-5 SC would be a direct competitor for Audi. Now with the new M550d which seems to aim in that direction (cars to take the whole family to ski), the 9-5 SC would make even more sense.

My hope is that whoever buys Saab will get licenses from GM for the 9-5. It’s too good a car not to be built again. And the SC…what a looker!

Angelo V.
Member
4 years 6 months ago

“We stand by our policy not to sell technology licenses to a new owner for Saab.”

TT: Not in any way?

– “No.”

TT: Typically in business, everything has a price tag.

-” Not in this case, says James Cain.”

I’ll leave it at that.

Kinglake SAAB
Member
4 years 6 months ago
Thanks Till 🙂 I Think that gm intended on shutting SAAB down when Victor was trying to buy them… “Show a dollar and it’s yours” the comment i seem to remember !! I think Victor pushed so hard and in some way forced them to sell ! Maybe due to media attention I know first hand as to what they are like to work for..Make sure your wearing back protection .. Hopefully 2009 deja vu happens for them soon 😀 Any of the New interested parties need to proceed without gm or their so called ip..Do we really won’t them… Read more »
EuroDriver
Member
4 years 6 months ago

Bravo! Very well said! If in fact BMW is a bidder, they have more than enough engineering power and money to start fresh with new platforms.

Allan B
Member
4 years 6 months ago
Right with you, Kinglake. That is precisely why I favour BMW. The GM cars are history, irrespective of whether or not GM do relinquish some current IP. Provided there are contingencies in place for a new owner to show a bit of goodwill and look after ng9-5 and 9-4 owners as best they can then it should turn out all right, all other things being equal. It makes me sad to say the GM-era cars are history. I own one myself, and then ng9-5 is great. But under someone like BMW – assuming honorable intentions – the next generation of… Read more »
Kimberly
Member
4 years 6 months ago

And so, the truth comes out. It’s not that they’re against Chinese ownership, but that they want SAAB dead, and now that they got what they wanted, they are blocking every single attempt to revive SAAB.

alwaysSaab
Member
4 years 6 months ago

Looks like the stance that GM is taking will and can only be changed or softened with US Government direct intervention. With GM’s arrogant and un-cooperative attitude, no deal is going to be successful. GM is behaving like a big bully down at a backlane of a tiny neighbourhood. The way Cain answered those questions sounds very much like a cry baby whose toy was snatched by another sibling.. Disgusting, to say the least.

Sockmonkey
Member
4 years 6 months ago
Till: Are you at liberty to tell us Brightwell’s proposed plans? Even though they are out of the bidding, I think it would be very instructive to hear how this company planned to manage Saab, and VM’s role in consulting with them. I recall Zamier saying that Brightwell already had a platform developed– where did it come from? Brightwell Chairman Alphan Manas is very interested in electric vehicles now. What were their plans for Saab electric cars? Knowing what kind of business plans were rejected may give insight into what the winning bid would have to contain– please share!
davidgmills
Member
4 years 6 months ago

I don’t know. I hate translations from one language to another. Too many subtleties are lost.

davidgmills
Member
4 years 6 months ago

Does anyone know where James Cain is when he is being interviewed? US or Sweden or somewhere else? Does anyone know what language he is being interviewed in? The quotes that keep being attributed to him just never sound like those of a company spokesperson. I’m skeptical of any James Cain interview at this point. Are there any videos?

Red J
Member
4 years 6 months ago

Are you saying that Mr. Cain doesn’t exist?

Angelo V.
Member
4 years 6 months ago

A robot? A computer program? Hmmmm…..

davidgmills
Member
4 years 6 months ago

What I am saying is that often the translations don’t make sense. You are right about the 9-4 X though. That statement was in English and an answer to an American reporter who inquired about rebadging the 9-4 X as a Chevy or a Buick. It was in an article where the journalist was commenting about what a good vehicle it was and why it was such a shame to stop production of it.

davidgmills
Member
4 years 6 months ago
What was curious about that comment was that it was acknowledged that it was a good vehicle. So if it was and Saab was truly dead, why not rebadge it and recoup some of the cost of making it? There has to be something to this. Perhaps some type of legal exposure for GM. Perhaps there was something in the sale to Spyker that would not allow GM to rebadge Saab cars in the event of a default so that Saab would have something to sell that was not in competition with GM. It could be that when the bankruptcy… Read more »
Angelo V.
Member
4 years 6 months ago

It’s the Cadillac SRX, isn’t it? So I’m sure they could rebadge it if they choose to. Problem is, rebadge it as what? In the U.S., it wouldn’t fit into any division except Buick, who already has the Enclave. Would have maybe worked as an Oldsmobile. Not sure about the rest of the world.

davidgmills
Member
4 years 6 months ago

Close but not exactly. The 9-4 is much squarer and looks better. (Caddy’s just seem to have awful styling these days with those funky headlights). Don’t know about the rest but the 9-4 looks much more like a traditional SUV.

ivo 71
Member
4 years 6 months ago
Spyker (now SWAN), the corporate entity GM signed the contracts with, isn’t bankrupt (yet). What is bankrupt is a subsidiary of SWAN but that’s not the entity the deal was made with. Saab shares are now worthless, as are the prefs GM’s prefs that GM retained as a kind of surety for SWAN’s possible default to pay the remaining acquisition price. Which SWAN did, of course, but the bankruptcy of Saab itself has rendered the surety useless and prevented the return of control of Saab to GM. SWAN may be dissolved forcibly or voluntarily at some point in the future… Read more »
Chris Carrier
Member
4 years 6 months ago

Could be english to swedish and back to english.

Angelo V.
Member
4 years 6 months ago

I understand what you’re saying, but wow, how hard is it to translate “NO.” “NO” is the bottom line here. I don’t see this as being lost in translation. It was a very direct answer, details obscured by language or not. “NO.” said James.

Daniel B
Member
4 years 6 months ago

“It was not GM’s fault that Saab decided to stop paying their suppliers and their employees.”

Hmmmmmmmmm…..

Remember 2008/2009 Mr Cain? 19th February suppliers stopped deliveries to Saab due to unpaid bills….
I would say that GM was ultimately responsible for Saab back then, and let´s see. how many suppliers and emplyees did not get paid back then..?

I agree with Till. This guy (hopefully) don´t have the full picture…

I WANT MY 9-5SC!!!

SpinM
Member
4 years 6 months ago
The more I read about GM, the lower they sink on my scale of (dis)respect. Ok, now they come out with a story, that they would have approved VA. I can still remember full well how much trouble they caused Saab on that issue. They probably just wanted to make sure, that their approval came so late, that it would do no good to anyone. In a year’s time they will probably change their mind about licensing of 9-5 and a bit later about 9-4X. In other words, they are just loosing Saab precious time. Sorry, if I sound negative,… Read more »
jim
Member
4 years 6 months ago

Correct me if I am wrong, but it was directly GM’s fault that Saab hasn’t paid their suppliers. It doesn’t take a genius to see that. Saab needed access to capital markets. A car company doesn’t exist in a vacuum. Just ask GM how hard it is to survive without giant capital injections that your business model couldn’t generate. They’ll tell you.

Keith
Member
4 years 6 months ago

Sorry, that just isn’t true at all. Saab under Spyker control didn’t pay their suppliers, and in April 2011 suppliers stopped providing parts, which shut down the Saab factory. GM at that point was just a vendor to Saab.

OliverH
Member
4 years 6 months ago
Maybe GM will currently licence to an other party. But is it worth or secure on the mid/ long term? It’s not really worth to deal with this guys. If a buyer starts with at least the 93-II and GM Parts (Powertrain,..) I would working like hell to eliminate this parts and try to replace it with parts PhoeniX should have in place: Gearbox: Vicura AB did consulting to a new gearbox (designing it for Saab, Tools were made). So there should be something. Withe there own gearbox (double clutch gear box) as a key part they can adopt any… Read more »
saabserb
Member
4 years 6 months ago
People, I think we shouldn’t count on GM letting someone to get IP’s for SAAB cars. I don’t think we should try reading between the lines here, GM has said no so many times in the recent past, that thinking of a secret GM plan is just naive. GM has full hands with stopping Opel bleeding and trying to fix the future for “non-American” cars (read non-“big dinosaur gasoline-thirsty pick-ups and SUVs”) with setting alliance with PSA . I now think that SAAB IP question bothers GM as much as a mosquito biting a big elephant. In their minds they… Read more »
OliverH
Member
4 years 6 months ago

yes. I think it would be better to do 93-II in a way to not hit GMS IP rights (diesel engine, auto gearbox) in low volumes and do a contract to build Minis as well in Trollhättan to get the people jobs. And PhoeniX must be the goal.
Don’t waste time with GM. Risky and expensive business.

TurboLover
Member
4 years 6 months ago

Fully agree!

900 classic cab
Guest
4 years 6 months ago

+1 over here.
I think GM it’s a dead but believe me, I’d love to be wrong though.
Has anyone considered the chance they might be telling the truth ?
No deal, period.

900 classic cab
Guest
4 years 6 months ago

a dead end

Angelo V.
Member
4 years 6 months ago

Couldn’t agree more. Time to move on.

Olav
Member
4 years 6 months ago
Absolutely! GM has said NO so many times now that I believe them, and let us be honest; there might be some truth in Mr Cains statement: -” They have had several chances to survive. The business has been in terrible shape for a long time. That’s why GM, when we had our own problems, decided to close down Saab. It was not GM’s fault that Saab decided to stop paying their suppliers and their employees.” As we all know: when GM took over SAAB many years back they gave SAAB platforms to use without any other permitions to do… Read more »
Angelo V.
Member
4 years 6 months ago
I think there is a realistic way for a company like Mahindra to keep the Saab name alive. I HOPE they could at least produce the 9-3 in some form while the new platform is developed. They could supplement with rebadged cars from another division of theirs and/or sell Mahindra branded trucks (already approved for sale in the U.S. and other places) in Saab showrooms—-or I should say “Saab-Mahindra” or “Mahindra-Saab” showrooms. I think the 9-3 is a big lynch pin. If that car can be produced, it could keep Saab in the game until something else is introduced.
Allan B
Member
4 years 6 months ago

Olav, when the dust settles and the files are open to lawyers, or journalists or historians, we will see – and I am quite convinced of this – that Saab did indeed turn a profit over several years at GM but this was disguised by GM’s – and I am using a euphemism here – creative accounting. Even by GM’s own unique – another euphemism – measure Saab did in fact turn a profit in 2003 I believe.

Keith
Member
4 years 6 months ago

I’ve read that GM statements suggest that Saab was profitable for 2 or 3 years of the 20 year run. Besides your wanting Saab to have been secretly profitable, are there any facts that suggest it?

Angelo V.
Member
4 years 6 months ago
Keith: I will take GM’s word for it that they lost money on Saab for 18 out of 20 years. That doesn’t prove anything about Saab, but it says a whole hell of a lot about GM, doesn’t it? Hummer, Oldsmobile, Pontiac, Saturn, Saturn, GEO for God’s sake…couldn’t turn enough of a profit on any of them to justify keeping them in business? Look at the Pontiac Solstice and Saturn Sky: How much money was spent on development, production, distribution, marketing and advertising of these cars? And how many years were they offered? LMAO. LOL. GM is so incompetent, it’s… Read more »
Keith
Member
4 years 6 months ago
Angelo, I gotta give you credit. Your energy on this is impressive. Every owner of Saab the auto company has lost money. Saab AB didn’t make money making Saab cars, and neither did Scania. By your logic, they too are “monumentally incompetent.” Like GM, both Saab AB and Scania have somehow managed to be successful in their post Saab auto lives. I like my Saab Angelo, but being angry at GM for not wanting to invest further energy in Saab just makes no sense. You come across like a jilted ex.
Angelo V.
Member
4 years 6 months ago
Saab AB and Scania, successful in their post Saab auto lives…selling cars? I don’t really know what their ownership/P&L history was. I do feel confident that Saab as a nameplate can be successful under different management/a different owner. I suspect GM feels that way too. What “further energy” are we asking GM to invest? Aren’t enterprises in business to “invest” energy to make money? That aside, to be quite honest, I have been clear here that I think Saab has been “mismanaged” since before GM was the owner. I have said countless times that beginning in the 1970s but especially… Read more »
Keith
Member
4 years 6 months ago

Angelo, as I’m not able to talk to your 11 year old cat like you do, I’m just not sure.

Allan B
Member
4 years 6 months ago
LOL 🙂 Keith, let’s be clear: so far as I am concerned, Neil Armstrong did walk on the moon and Elvis died in 1977. I am not into conspiracy theories. There is at present not much hard evidence of what GM truly got up to vis a vis Saab’s finances, so far as I can see, although hopefully someone with more knowledge might pipe up on this. But what I have is a gut feeling, a hunch. That is why I said that when the files *are* actually opened up, ie the facts come to light, I firmly believe we… Read more »
ivo 71
Member
4 years 6 months ago
Well, I did a skype interview on that subject with Angelo’s cat. He mawed to me that he certainly could run GM, just like any other fat or skinny cat could, but had no intention to, no matter how many Whiskas cans GM would offer to him as basic remuneration and how many Biscroc bisquits as a bonus. He simply didn’t want to make himself the risee of the cat community by assuming control of something as gross as GM. And he doesn’t pretend to be a superfeline being. Any cat, even a totally stupid one, would make that decision,… Read more »
Angelo V.
Member
4 years 5 months ago

My cat is named Harry and he weighs over 20 pounds—an orange tabby. So he is a fat cat, but unlike GM Managers, he’s friendly. By the way, he asked that I post the following link, just to put to rest any question about what GM has repaid and what GM owes to the United States Treasurey.
http://www.newser.com/story/140728/gm-to-spend-500m-on-worker-bonuses.html

Bravada from GMI
Member
4 years 6 months ago

Are we to connect the dots and guess that Brightwell was the source of the conviction SU got that “GM is talking”? If so, I believe they were indeed not.

Roland Greuzat
Member
4 years 6 months ago

After owned five Saab, I’ve just sold my last sport hatch to buy a…. Peugeot….. I’m in trouble, I’ve a lot of reasons to worry once more!

Angelo V.
Member
4 years 6 months ago

Roland: Here in the U.S., we don’t even have the option to buy a new Peugeot!

ivo 71
Member
4 years 6 months ago

Be grateful for that. The last fun Peugeot was the one Columbo drove. And we all know how reliable that one was.

Ivo

Bullnose
Member
4 years 6 months ago
My prediction is that SAAB aircraft will simply licence the SAAB car name to another manufacturer. That, of course, means that someone else’s IP goes into a SAAB and we get, for example, in the short term, an existing BMW model rebadged as SAAB. The big question is then whether a new owner like BMW would allow a SAAB branded new model to be built at Trollhatten. Whatever the solution, it’s unlikely that SAAB is going to get control of its own IP again, and there is going to be a three or four year gap before much can restart… Read more »
bpsorrel
Member
4 years 6 months ago

Or, after the reveal yesterday that BMW may be resurrecting the Triumph brand, Saab DNA may appear in Triumph branded FWD cars? 🙁

Tone
Member
4 years 6 months ago

It wouldn’t be the first time that the names ‘Saab’ and ‘Triumph’ have been seen together…

Trued
Member
4 years 6 months ago

Not so Triumphant way back with the first 99´s…..

spacy
Guest
4 years 6 months ago

The original B202 was a distant version of the Triumph HL1250 2 litre engine

OliverH
Member
4 years 6 months ago

I think the receivers told us that the rights of Saab belongs in three parts to Saab AB, Saab Automobile AB and an other division/ spin off of Saab.
The grippen image belongs to Scania.

900 classic cab
Guest
4 years 6 months ago

The other “SAAB” is not only about aircraft.

David-SAAB
Member
4 years 6 months ago

God I’m sick of that puppet!

Angelo V.
Member
4 years 6 months ago

That’s namecalling David!

visserjr
Member
4 years 6 months ago

Shameless interview. Business in terrible shape? That is under GM foor almost 20 years, so they had to blame thereselves. I’m really angry now!

hans h
Member
4 years 6 months ago

Yes, it is amazing that he tries to blame GM:s business problems on Saab (and Opel), when they are wholly integrated into GM.

Bland Motors, bah!

Bryan Kazes
Member
4 years 6 months ago

Thus the reason I think GM should rot in hell.

Also, do not be surprised if there are other reasons that GM is fearful of SAABs survival. I have a gut feeling that there is information on actions taken by GM while they owned SAAB. Specifically whether or not GM “cooked the books” and transferred liabilities and debts into SAAB all while transferring assets away from SAAB – the latter we know they did – and all of which would cause them to be crucified by even the government.

Food for thought people; food for thought.

Allan B
Member
4 years 6 months ago

Chomp, chomp … mmm, yes, this does taste suspicious. You are spot on there, I reckon, Saab4life.

kochje
Member
4 years 6 months ago

Just STOP talking and writing about GM.
It is over, out, finished.
Why don’t we look forward and try to go our own way, eventually with new partners that are more trustworthy then this GM group.

MrTinkertrain
Member
4 years 6 months ago

http://www.autocar.co.uk/News/NewsArticle/AllCars/261537/
That is the fact about BMW rumours. Why would they revive 2 brands at the same time?

I think only YM remained with almost no chance knowing GM’s position.

Red J
Member
4 years 6 months ago

Who is saying that they want to revive Triumph?

OliverH
Member
4 years 6 months ago

But they could. They’ve the rights on the name. If they don’t use it commercially do they lose the rights?

Coke is it
Member
4 years 6 months ago

Speaking of official statements.

I don’t know how reliable this info is but BMW is said to have officially denied interest in buying the Ducati (from an unreliable source http://www.indiancarsbikes.in/cars/bmw-interested-saab-buy-race-ducati-56263/ ) but has said to ttela http://ttela.se/ekonomi/saab/1.1543418-gm-inget-har-forandrats- that they don’t comment on rumours and therefor not on the rumour that they are interested in Saab.

So, they deny the rumour about Ducati but say they don’t want to comment on the rumour about Saab.

I like rumours 🙂

Sue Esponte
Member
4 years 6 months ago
I’ve been saying this for months and have only been criticized by folks here. GM never cared about saving Saab. This is only news to you if you had your head in the sand. Saab is dead. Accept it and start focusing on ways of building the community of enthusiasts who are dedicated to keeping all of our Saabs on the road! If there will ever be an automotible company known as Saab in the future it will be based on architecture that is entirely unrelated to any current Saab in existence. It will also have no real tie to… Read more »
rune
Member
4 years 6 months ago

The situation now is that there is a handful bidders for what remains. At least one of them has said they will continue developing the Phoenix platform (and subsequently the 9-3 replacement).

If what you wrote was true, then nobody would put a 2 billion SEK bid on the table.

That doesn’t mean that things would not pan out the way you describe, but currently that is the less likely scenario.

Ricky
Member
4 years 6 months ago

I’d like to see GM in the hell and all their inversors. I love you James Cain

Trued
Member
4 years 6 months ago

Really interesting to read how GM acts.
It seams like they have no knowledge what so ever of the force an internet information storm against them would lead to.
The car world is indeed big and Saab people are generally highly educated, connected and verbal.
It is high time to let the car world know how GM acts.

Angelo V.
Member
4 years 6 months ago

I urge you and others to go to GM’s Facebook pages and join me in occupying and speaking some truth there. It’s amazing to me—-but it really seems as though on average, there are nearly as many negative posts as there are positive ones. Go to Kia’s Facebook pages or any other manufacturer—-and it is probably 90% positive. At GM? Maybe 50% over the course of a week? You’re right—-time to let the car world know what they risk by buying GM.

MariusGTV
Member
4 years 6 months ago

That last paragraph smacks of sour grapes to me. It’s like he is saying ‘If GM can’t make a success of Saab then we’ll be damned if we will allow any one else to!’

To be honest, I gave up taking much notice of what Mr Cain has to say some time ago and I suggest we all do the same. Just my opinion of course.

Griffin Up! Cuore Sportivo!

E. Boon
Member
4 years 6 months ago
Clear. So GM will frustrate any deal based on starting up production soon. Dealers won’t have cars to sell so will have to close down. Drop option 1: start-up with permission of GM, develop your own thing, gradually change to non GM technology (Brightwell, Youngman). This leaves option 2 and 3: 2: Buy factory, start-up with another brand (Mini), develop a non GM car ready in 2 year and brand this car SAAB. (BMW). 3: Cherry pick the factory / buy machines, kill SAAB period (Geely). For the sellers (administrators) only the amount of money is important, Not the car… Read more »
Angelo V.
Member
4 years 6 months ago

Yes, why not at least make some money—-when you still owe the U.S. treasury 20 billion dollars. I’ve already rifled off three letters to my three representatives (two Senators and a Congressman). GM owes me, as a taxpayer, money. Not only are they walking away from the licensing money—they are also ruining resale value on my car and causing some Saab employees in the U.S. their jobs, adding to our unemployment. It’s obsurd. GM should not be allowed to exercise this power that the contract allows until they are square with us financially.

Angelo V.
Member
4 years 6 months ago
I was cautioned previously for “namecalling” when I was critical of this Cain fellow. So I will refrain from namecalling today. But I think if nothing else, I was proven right in one respect: He’s doesn’t appear to be very good at his job. To elaborate—-in business and in politics, a spokesperson is supposed to serve the purpose of representing the entity in a capable way—-and often, that means putting a good face on a bad situation—–making a negative seem not so bad. Making a positive seem all the better. This man’s demeanor, at least in my opinion, takes a… Read more »
Angelo V.
Member
4 years 6 months ago
By the way—-this is really bad news. I don’t think Cain would be that specific—-and that final—-unless he was given very clear information by higher ranking people at GM who actually know something. The language “(Saab) has had several chances to survive” is combative to say the least. The rumors that GM might be willing to license this tech—-that they were speaking with potential buyers behind the scenes—these rumors seem to have been squashed by this statement, in no uncertain terms. Can we now conclude that if there is a new buyer of Saab as a whole, and a restart,… Read more »
saabman
Member
4 years 6 months ago
In the past (pre-bankruptcy) GM has stated its willingness to sell parts–engines and the like–to a Chinese owned Saab. That was deemed not enough and the 100 % ownership deal fell through, as we know. But I imagine that GM would be willing to take that route again for the 9-3, if a buyer so chose. It could be a stop-gap measure until the new line is launched. I believe I read here that Saab engineers felt that replacing GM parts with another manufacturer’s on the 9-3 would be quite costly, probably prohibitively so. But that’s not an official word.
mike saunders
Member
4 years 6 months ago

Saabman, that’s a good point but GM sold BAIC old tooling for the OG9-5 and some outdated tech used on the 9-3SS — nothing that it planned to use for future models. That tech deal is completely separate from any deal that would use current IP, and that would be the case for any stop-gap 9-3 on the market until the Phoenix-based models were built.

100%Saab
Member
4 years 6 months ago

“To make it short: I do not believe that.” I agree.

Angelo V.
Member
4 years 6 months ago

Based on what? Not WANTING to believe it, or is there something more tangible that can give hope that it’s false? I don’t want to believe it either—-but it’s one of those situations where the grass is green, not purple. I can tell myself the grass is purple if I really want purple grass—-but it’s not, so what’s the point?

100%Saab
Member
4 years 6 months ago

Past performance. We will see.

AEROOTTAWA
Member
4 years 6 months ago

I”m afraid Angelo is right. There is no way Mr. Cain would make such definitive statements unless he is reflecting company policy. If, as some seem to think, Cain is not being kept informed of the true situation, then GM is destroying the credibility of its own official spokesperson – something I don’t think any company would want to do.

davidgmills
Member
4 years 6 months ago
Official spokespersons are told to say crap all the time. Suppose GM really wants a deal with, for example, Mahindra, and is trying to discourage all other prospective buyers. It could secretly be telling Mahindra they will license to them and have their spokesperson say they are not considering licensing to anyone. Afte getting a deal with Mahindra, all they have to say is that Mahindra made them an offer they never expected and could not refuse because to refuse the offer would hurt their shareholders. So these comments do not necessarily mean the end. This kind of crap happens… Read more »
Angelo V.
Member
4 years 6 months ago
One more thing: Those of us who advising bidders 4-6 weeks ago to stop spending energy, time and money worrying about GM cooperation might be vindicated/proven right by Cain’s statements. The feeling among some Saab fans was that GM’s position was absolutely crystal clear—-they would not under any circumstances cooperate with a new buyer, regardless if the buyer was from China, Turkey, India or Mars—-and wasting time dealing with GM or trying to deal with GM would accomplish nothing and only damage the chances of actually saving Saab—-as it was taking resources from developing realistic business plans and alliances to… Read more »
rask
Member
4 years 6 months ago

Agree, no reason to dig your head into the ground anymore.

Cains message is crystal clear.

maanders
Member
4 years 6 months ago

Yes, but this means that any buyer of Saab will have it that much harder to resurrect the brand since the worldwide dealer network (what is left of it) will have a hard time surviving until new Saabs with no GM tech IP can be designed, tested and built. Not to say someone will not try, but the job just got that much harder if this is as final as it is made to sound.

Angelo V.
Member
4 years 6 months ago

Unless a 9-3 can continue, with or without GM????

dcpattie
Member
4 years 6 months ago

I feel for the individual Saab Dealerships because they will be hurt most by GM’s actions. Even if the best case scenario pans out – BMW buys Saab and builds several variants on the Phoenix platform – it will be at least 2-3 years away. With no product to sell in the interim, the current Saab dealership network will collapse. So perhaps in 2-3 years from we will start seeing BMW-MINI-SAAB showrooms?

E. Boon
Member
4 years 6 months ago

I’m afraid you’re right. And that’s even a best case scenario.
As long as GM doesn’t think rational but acts emotional instead.

ivo 71
Member
4 years 6 months ago

Well, the dealers could sell Mini’s for the time being. Or convert to BMW group dealers and resume selling/add Saabs as soon as they become available again. A brand can never have enough dealers and service points.

Ivo

Chicago Swede
Member
4 years 6 months ago

Makes me sick to my stomach everytime he opens his mouth……………

Aero1
Member
Simply9-5
Member
4 years 6 months ago

“If someone were to acquire the [Saab] factory in Trollhattan and produce vehicles, including Saabs, it would not be an issue,” said the GM spokesman.

Hmm..I wonder if it wouldn’t be..

Red J
Member
4 years 6 months ago

Interesting that just-auto talks to a “GM spokesman” and not to Mr Cain. And also quite intriguing to hear that “spokesman” only talking about the 9-4x and the 9-5, no single word about the 9-3.

saabman
Member
4 years 6 months ago
I agree with your “interestings” Red. I actually see a couple hopeful pieces of news in this statement. First, despite what the bankruptcy trustees seemed to suggest early on, it doesn’t seem that GM has to approve the next sale of Saab. That’s good news. GM won’t be an impenetrable roadblock. And that GM seems to have clarified for itself that the 9-3 is not an issue for them. Earlier in the Chinese negotiations GM refused to license any technology but stated that it would be willing to sell parts to Saab, presumably for the 9-3. It seems to me… Read more »
Angelo V.
Member
4 years 6 months ago

+1

mike saunders
Member
4 years 6 months ago
a couple of points: 1) To my knowledge, GM never had to approve the sale itself, as the Spyker deal was 75 percent in non-voting shares. I can see why there was a misconception, as that “GM wants to kill Saab” fiction gained traction here in the comments over the past year. The bankruptcy trustees had GM on the radar because it is a major shareholder and one of the creditor due to the licensed tech. If Saab went belly-up, GM would simply be in line with suppliers, employees, and other vendors trying to recoup losses. 2) You nailed the… Read more »
bpsorrel
Member
4 years 6 months ago
I think these are the key words we really need to absorb and accept: “If someone were to acquire the [Saab] factory in Trollhattan and produce vehicles, including Saabs, it would not be an issue,” said the GM spokesman. “But if someone tried to restart with GM technology, that is not going to happen.” That seems fairly definitve to me. So, let’s forget any GM IP, any existing or past GM content Saabs and hope that a potential buyer can or would want to, build a car(s) with no GM tech. I would guess this would take at least 2… Read more »
rask
Member
4 years 6 months ago

+1.

But I wish I didn’t.

Fat lady Cain has sung…

Angelo V.
Member
4 years 6 months ago

Yes, a company like Mahindra desparately NEEDS (not just wants, but NEEDS) a familiar nameplate (even one with some baggage) to sell vehicles in new markets, including the U.S. They need dealers to sell their (EPA approved) trucks too. So yes, grafting a Saab nose and tail treatment on a Ssangyong vehicle, upgrading the interior and drive characteristics and selling it as a Saab is a lifeline for a company like M&M to enter markets where they currently have no presence at all.

Skipper
Member
4 years 6 months ago
Well the industry may well be “saturated with brands already”, but not too many are Swedish and most are just clones of some sort! I honestly think that the industry DOES need another alternative to the mainstream brands, and marketed properly I think that more people would eventually start to think outside the box. GM did a lousy job of marketing Saab and didn’t have a clue as to where to pitch the brand in the market! Even now I still meet people who know nothing about Saab, some have never even heard of Saab at all, that is a… Read more »
bpsorrel
Member
4 years 6 months ago

I agree in principle. A Saabless motor industry is a sad one and I for one will miss Saab immensely (if the worst happens) but in a world full of mindless clones, are there enough buyers for Saabs to make it viable for a manufacturer to poor countless millions into? I do, really, really hope so!

Paul
Member
4 years 6 months ago

I am not a fanboy of GM. But I would imagine the tone of this interview is lost in translation. Typically, when you translate from another language into English, you lose all pleasantries.

Angelo V.
Member
4 years 6 months ago

What language does Cain speak?

hans h
Member
4 years 6 months ago

He speaks Corporate. Technically not a language, but as unintelligible as the languages Law, Bureaucracy and Politician.

hilmar
Member
4 years 6 months ago

Months ago in this situation each logical thinking human being interested in Saab must have developed a plan avoiding GM. Hopefully someone thinks reasonable and set the stage for it. I don´t understand why everyone is running to GM begging for a license they never wanted to accord.

Angelo V.
Member
4 years 6 months ago

My thoughts exactly. Hopefully the remaining bidders are dazzling the Receivers with a business plan that throws GM out on their fat ass. It might be the only way for Saab to be sold as a whole.

MarkS
Member
4 years 6 months ago
GM has been running Saab into the ground for many years. As Saab’s corporate parent, GM is responsible for the mess. LET’S NOT FORGET, GM ITSELF IS ONLY ALIVE TODAY THANKS TO THE AMERICAN TAXPAYER, a fact which makes this US citizen sick at the very thought! GM’S LACK OF VISION, LACK OF CREATIVITY AND OBSESSION WITH BADGE ENGINEERING are some of the reasons for their lackluster performance in recent years. GM is currently the George Costanza of the auto industry…..their every instinct and call to action is the opposite of what should be done. Remember the amazing concepts Saab… Read more »
mike saunders
Member
4 years 6 months ago

This US citizen would like to point out to other US citizens that GM just had its most profitable year ever, in part because it solidified its core brands by cutting Saab, Hummer, Pontiac and Saturn.

Angelo V.
Member
4 years 6 months ago

In part because they don’t have to pay corporate income taxes for 10 years. In part because they were floated with billions from Uncle Sam. In part because municipalities are being pressured to buy GM junk for their fleets. Hey Mike, guess what? GE just announced that they are buying 12000 Chevy Volts for their corporate fleet. Why do you suppose that is? Jeff Immelt of GE is just a really sweet, green guy? Or maybe the White House had something to do with it? Gee, ya think?

mike saunders
Member
4 years 6 months ago

Maybe it was the fact that as a company that is one of the world’s largest producers of electric energy, it was a good move to use electric cars?

Maybe it was the black helicopters that ferried the Trilateral Commission to GE headquarters? Grassy knoll?

Angelo V.
Member
4 years 6 months ago

Not at all, just plain, out in the open cronie capitalism, that’s all.

MarkS
Member
4 years 6 months ago
I appreciate your thoughts Mike, but Saab helped GM far more than it ever hurt them. GM mined Saab for its technology over the years and GM’s product lines have benefited as a result. It’s also uncertain how much of a financial black hole Saab really was, and I don’t think it’s realistic to blame Saab for GM’s financial issues. GM kept Saab’s own product lineup on life support for a very long time, so it shouldn’t be a surprise that Saab didn’t flourish with GM at the helm. My point is that Saab deserves the chance to recover and… Read more »
davidgmills
Member
4 years 5 months ago
I just don’t agree with that. GM has oodles of technology that have never make it to production. What Saab had was a desire to make a certain kind of car (not necessarily a highly technical one). More than anything it was a philosophy. Saab concentrated on making a car that was safe, one that was peppy, fun to drive, utilitarian all at a reasonable price. It is a high value car. But these were design choices much more than they were technological achievements, although Saab did have some very good technological safety achievements. But GM didn’t need Saab’s technology.
E. Boon
Member
4 years 6 months ago

But….. BMW and GM do already cooperate on fuell cell technology. Maybe…… etc. etc.

wishihadasaab
Member
4 years 6 months ago
This isn’t news. Well it is, it is old news. We already knew that GM doesn’t want to license to any new SAAB owner, whoever they may be. It seems that so far GM is the only company to keeo their word. BH said they were talking to GM, everyone assumed licensing would take place, rumors started swirling about back room deals, etc… Yet GM, specifically James, has said time and time again, NO HOW NO WAY….. I cannot fault a company for being a company. They do not owe the US money like everyone says and they do not… Read more »
Angelo V.
Member
4 years 6 months ago
Joseph: General Motors has an outstanding balance of 20 billion dollars owed to the U.S. Treasury. You can spin it however you’d like to. I know that technically, they don’t owe taxpayers—-they owe the Treasury. But the Treasury is funded by taxpayers, like a co-op. So if one party owes—-I can rationally make the leap that by owing the Treasury, they also owe the other members of said co-op—the ones who ARE paid in full, me being one of them. My understanding of the licensing is that if GM would grant technology used on recent Saabs to a new owner… Read more »
Steve C.
Member
4 years 6 months ago

While there was a bailout (that started before GM’s Chapter 11), there was an organized bankruptcy proceeding that shed all that debt. In other words, there was both. No longer having that legacy debt is a significant contributor to GM’s current net profitability.

Angelo V.
Member
4 years 6 months ago
Steve: The UAW contract stood. In fact, didn’t the UAW receive 33% ownership as part of the government bailout (after President Obama took over from Bush, who started it)? So this particular bankruptcy re-organization didn’t rewrite the fat UAW contracts, didn’t rewrite their pensions, didn’t reduce their solid platinum medical benefits—in short, didn’t retool GM to be more competitive—-it just showered billions upon billions of dollars on them so they could meet their obligations without freeing themselves of the obligations—-as a traditional bankruptcy does. You are likely referring to bond holders getting skunked, along with some suppliers who were owed… Read more »
mike saunders
Member
4 years 6 months ago

Sigh…..Actually, the UAW contracts were rewritten to change elements of health care, pensions, and pay. That was one of the contingencies that the US govt demanded before the bailout.

http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2009/05/uaw_leaders_endorse_gm_contrac.html

http://local10retirees.com/41401.html

and so on…

Angelo V.
Member
4 years 6 months ago

…and partial OWNERSHIP of the corporation Mike? Don’t forget that tiny detail. It was a sweetheart campaign repayment for union support. Traditiona, organized bankruptcy would have let them emerge leaner—-and would have been the most fair approach in a free markets economy. How is this fair to Ford?

davidgmills
Member
4 years 5 months ago

Ford could have filed bankruptcy if they wanted the same deal or a similar one. It didn’t because the Ford family would have lost their 30% (maybe 40%) voting rights.

I hate this argument about what a saint Ford was. It only did what it did because the Ford family saved its bacon. Neither GM nor Chrysler had a Ford family to bail them out.

Angelo V.
Member
4 years 6 months ago

Mike: Since you’re an expert on how those contracts were rewritten, are you aware that there was no restriction on $7000.00 bonuses being doled out to the rank and file? Low and behold, guess what? GM just announced those $7000.00 bonuses to their peeps~! Where is our 20 billion again?

mike saunders
Member
4 years 6 months ago

Profit sharing was part of the UAW contract renegotiation. The UAW worked out a similar deal with Ford that was picked up by GM and Chrysler.

Next?

Angelo V.
Member
4 years 6 months ago

Mike: Ford doesn’t still owe the Treasury 20 billion dollars. I don’t care if they share their profits with their employees or with the Royal Family—-doesn’t matter to me. What GM does with THEIR profits, while they owe the U.S. money—THAT matters to me. Next?

Angelo V.
Member
4 years 6 months ago

Another contributor to their current net profitability is that they were relieved of paying corporate tax for 10 years (I assume beginning in 2009). That sure helps. I’m sure Ford would love that peach of a deal too. They weren’t good enough at begging though.

wishihadasaab
Member
4 years 6 months ago
http://www.factcheck.org/2010/05/general-motors-debt/ (debt paid) as far as Ford… Not American made… They moved all production out of US… They cut jobs and left the regions where they once produced vehicles economically unstable and environmentally unsustainable. Ford is company, you are right… By giving GM a handout the government gained 61% of the company and did a restructuring to keep the most amount of people employed as they could afford. The government wasn’t trying to save GM just the jobs. Now the employees have stock in the company, the jobs are still in the region, and their headquarters is helping out Detroit.… Read more »
wishihadasaab
Member
4 years 6 months ago

Sorry not all US Ford plants closed… Most closed and are no longer in the US tho…

Angelo V.
Member
4 years 6 months ago

GM shill?

wishihadasaab
Member
4 years 6 months ago
You are calling me a GM shill because I gave you evidence backing an argument. Pull your head out of your arse and actually read for once. Do not just let anger control your ignorance. I (as a damn scientist- geospatial and statistical analyses) read, read, and read some more before I make a conclusion. The facts are out there, it is up to you to put aside your bias and find them. I pay taxes in America just like you (except no state tax because I live in Texas) and I know research where my dollars go. I know… Read more »
Angelo V.
Member
4 years 6 months ago
Joseph: I only had to read this hastily written paragraph for the lights to really turn on. You say you’re from Texas? By any chance, are you near Arlington? And I see you’re not just a GM shill, but a shill for the political left in the U.S. too. Lately, the two have gone hand in hand, along with Jeffy Immelt of GE and NBC News (a tidy little clique, they all are—White House, GM, GE, NBC, wouldn’t you say?). Can you give us a rundown of what percentage of Ford vehicles sold in the U.S. are made in the… Read more »
wishihadasaab
Member
4 years 6 months ago
I do not know percentages because they are broken up by vehicle component. However, Ford has two of the top ten vehicles made in the US and GM has four of the top ten vehicles in the US. http://www.cars.com/go/advice/Story.jsp?section=top&subject=ami&story=amMade0808 (source) Yes I do live near Arlington and I am sorry my grammatical skills are not up to your standards. (sarcasm in case my poorly written sentence got lost on you) I belong to no party and get my news from facts not bias opinions. Also, GE sold NBC, so no bias there. I buy cars to drive because thats what… Read more »
BarryMemphis
Member
4 years 5 months ago

This is not a forum for a political debate. Both of you are much too intelligent for this. Believe it or not, Saab vehicles don’t have factory installed bumper-stickers that read: Republican (or) Democrat….Liberal (or) Conservative. Saab is ALL inclusive! Get over it guys.

Angelo V.
Member
4 years 5 months ago
Arlington, Texas, home of a General Motors plant. Now we’re getting somewhere. 1) Your grammar was just fine—it was the attitude that made me say “hasty.” 2) My point with the question about Ford/GM imports is that both make cars in U.S. factories and both sell cars in the U.S. NOT made in U.S. factories. You seemed to pin this on Ford but it’s true of both of them—-not even sure about FIAT owned Chrysler. Historically, Chrysler sold plenty of imports as Dodge and Plymouth—from Mitsubishi as I recall. 3) The point about my Volt question wasn’t to imply that… Read more »
wishihadasaab
Member
4 years 5 months ago

1. I did not know there was a plant in Arlington
2. I made the point about Ford to point out they are a company first.
3. I agree- except GM makes crap everywhere
4. Same here- I dont vote for party but rather people
5. Sport utilities seem to be the family prefered vehicle…. It was once wagons and sedans

Angelo V.
Member
4 years 6 months ago

Ford is a company too.

Angelo V.
Member
4 years 6 months ago
Question: If a company buys Saab (as a whole) out of bankruptcy—-but does not get GM licensing for anything and has nothing to build for the time being—-what would that mean for the future as far as parts and service is concerned? I know for now, we’d be able to go to any Saab dealers that survive or go to independent shops that specialize on Saab—-and hope they could source parts. But let’s say in 2 or 3 years, a winning bidder comes back with a Saab car. Just as an example, let’s say it’s BMW—-and they sell Saab’s at… Read more »
saabman
Member
4 years 6 months ago
Legally, in both Sweden and the US car manufacturers have to make parts available for a certain number of years after a model was discontinued. It’s 8-10 years, I think. So, those legal regulations should keep things going for a time. Obviously you can’t hold a bankrupt and closed business to that, but since GM was the owner until 2010 it follows that it should be responsible for vehicles produced until 2018 at least (basically any 9-3 should be safe, even those sold under Spyker/Swan). Not sure about the 9-5 or 9-4x. At the same time, we know that Saab… Read more »
Angelo V.
Member
4 years 6 months ago

Do you think a new owner would still service older Saabs—-if the new owner doesn’t begin selling Saab branded vehicles for a few years? Would they basically only service “THEIR” Saabs, or do you think they would open their service departments to GM era and Spyker era Saabs?

saabman
Member
4 years 6 months ago
I’m no expert on this, just an interested Saab owner who reads SU. But it seems to me that a smart new owner would do everything it could to cultivate the loyalty of current Saab drivers. They wouldn’t want to start out by frustrating the people who are likely to be the first buyers of a relaunched Saab. To my mind, they may even reinstate warranty coverage (for 2010 and 2011) and the new car free serving, to create goodwill and loyalty. The latter may be too much to ask, but it wouldn’t cost them all that much and in… Read more »
ivo 71
Member
4 years 5 months ago

I guess that new owner would have to be pretty stupid not to continue selling parts. If no complete Saabs can be built for a year or two, the parts production and distribution would be the only profit center for Saab until the Phoenix 900 arrives. Moreover, not doing it would alienate most of the existing worldwide customer base, i.e. people like us. Would you buy another Saab if the new owner would leave you out in the cold as far as service and spare parts are concerned?

Ivo

Angelo V.
Member
4 years 5 months ago

As part of this sale, will the new owner gain the rights to produce/sell the parts—-or somehow, does that stay with GM or someone else, especially for the GM era cars (through 2009)?

Skipper
Member
4 years 6 months ago

In plain terms, GM sees Saab as some sort a threat, if it becomes a success under the ownership of a company with enough funds to carry out the job correctly! Why else would GM not wish to talk about selling licenses and making some money? Just a thought!!

Angelo V.
Member
4 years 6 months ago
They don’t see Saab as a threat—-they see a future owner of Saab as a threat. To clarify: GM claims to have lost money on Saab every year between 1990 and 2009. That’s two decades that they were “saddled” with a brand they couldn’t turn a profit on (according to their hot little books). So the threat you refer to is that a buyer—-be it inexperienced Youngman, German BMW or Indian truck maker Mahnidra—-could buy a bankrupt Saab and within 3 years, start showing a profit. The threat here is to GM’s image and reputation. The American press (probably the… Read more »
E
Member
4 years 6 months ago

Actually I see this *all* about money. Cain said SAAB stiffed them for US$100M. New owner needs to cover that and pay a penalty ($10M?) for starters. If they approached it from that position, perhaps they’d pay ball…?

E
Member
4 years 6 months ago

…play ball …? (not pay)

Angelo V.
Member
4 years 6 months ago

TT: Typically in business, everything has a price tag.

– “Not in this case,” says James Cain.

E: Are you calling the honorable James Cain a liar? Yes. You are saying this is “all about money” and he is saying in this case, there is no price tag. I’m very disappointed that you don’t believe the upstanding Citizen Cain.

E
Member
4 years 6 months ago

Angelo: Haha. You are still smarting from someone calling you a name caller … I can tell. 😉

I am saying if company X walked into GM’s HQ with a briefcase containing US$110M then I could see them listening. If there is no “Show me the Money” moment, they’re not dancing.

BarryMemphis
Member
4 years 6 months ago
Hello, “E”! Angelo ‘got it’….he was being ‘tongue in cheek’. By the way…for others here, James Cain speaks english, was interviewed by a Swedish reporter, and the verbiage then translated into Swedish and (I assume) back into English via Google translation. Whilst some things may be lost in translation, the tone of the conversation is definitely NOT. I would say, unless otherwise authorised by his company, the arrogance he exhibited in his statements are at best ‘politically incorrect’ and at worst, libelous. He is a spokesperson that hasn’t been taught the ‘good lesson’ of DISCRETION. That will work to his… Read more »
E
Member
4 years 6 months ago

@BarryMemphis I know … I appreciate the sarcasm. I get him. 🙂 Catch you soon, my friend.

leriksso
Member
4 years 6 months ago

Talk about GM killing there self on the World market buy there own act,

And then we just can say to Mr James Cain : “It was not the Europenans fault that GM lost significant market in Europe and the rest of the world . It is just cos of there behavour regarding SAAB. ”

I do never going to spens one cent on there products in the future and btw…I want my 9-5 SC as well.

Piet-Hein S.
Member
4 years 6 months ago

after doing some research on the internet (Google, GM.com), i found no James Cain inrelation with GM. there IS a James M. Cain (writer, died in 1977) and a James Cain, actor. also at http://www.gm.com/company/aboutGM/GM_Corporate_Officers.html i didnot find a James Cain als CIO, or the like….

are we being fooled herer by GM???

Piet-Hein S.
Member
4 years 6 months ago

‘here’, that is… 🙂

ahlis
Member
4 years 6 months ago

Why even try it … leave GM to their destiny.. IF youngman has the financial power to finish the Phoenix then it just might fly.

I don´t need to have the latest model of any brand, I want a Saab and if I can´t get it I will stick with the present models…..

Angelo V.
Member
4 years 6 months ago

Isn’t it ironic that the movie Citizen Kane profiles an arrogant corporation—-and today, we read the ramblings of James Cain—-representing an arrogant corporation?

Angelo V.
Member
4 years 6 months ago

Just call him Citizen Cain.

TurboLover
Member
4 years 5 months ago

hahaha!!!

dezzer
Member
4 years 6 months ago

Someone out there is taking the p… now, this has gone on long enough almost farcical. If GM wont sell to anyone, tell us and stop wasting out time and energy. Make a GOD DAMN STATEMENT to the world and tell us !!! BMW if you are up for a bid, TELL EVERYONE, and anyone else that is interested. If SAAB is dead, i’ve still got to get up for work tomorrow !!!

BarryMemphis
Member
4 years 6 months ago
The contents of Cain’s interview needs to be published by media here in the USA. I intend to do my very best to make that happen. The sheer and pure arrogance of this man (on behalf of GM) must be displayed to the American public, immediately. I assure you that it then becomes less about Saab, as it is to the audacity of an individual or a COMPANY to publically DECLARE that they INTEND to cause the ‘death’ of another esteemed company, simply because they THINK they can (especially when they were in the same position only a few years… Read more »
dezzer
Member
4 years 6 months ago

good on you

Smithy
Member
4 years 6 months ago

Start e-mailing the various newspapers, go for it!

Scire
Member
4 years 6 months ago

Ditto here! ! !

mike saunders
Member
4 years 6 months ago

rofl……as someone who used to do this for a living, here are your headlines:

“GM: We Won’t Allow Foreign Firms to Buy Intellectual Property at Fire-Sale Prices”

“GM Says ‘No’ to Foreign Vultures”

“GM Bucks Trend, Refuses Bad Deal With China”

and so on.

There are myriad ways for GM to positively spin this in the media.

Angelo V.
Member
4 years 6 months ago

Very good point.

Angelo V.
Member
4 years 6 months ago

Mike: That reminds me of something—from the cold war era. The U.S. swim team went to Moscow for a contest against the U.S.S.R olympic team. They were the only countries competing. The U.S. swimmers won the meet. Provda (Is that spelled right?) reported it as: “U.S.S.R. places second in swim meet. In the same meet, the U.S. team finished second to last.” Yes, it’s amazing what you can do with words.

mike saunders
Member
4 years 6 months ago

A fair point…

But GM truly doesn’t care about what happens in Trollhattan, but it deeply cares about how it’s perceived in the US after the bailout — despite its success. That’s where the right words come into play, and it’s far less damaging to be seen as heartless toward a small city whose own government left it for dead. That’s the opinion of a few thousand die-hard Saabisti. A few million people likely care that GM is protecting its US investment by refusing to get fleeced by China.

BarryMemphis
Member
4 years 6 months ago

Let them ‘spin it’ any way they wish. GM would be forced to ANSWER. PERIOD. And when the facts are revealed, they would lose the battle for/of integrity. It needs to happen, regardless the outcome. What do we stand to lose?

BarryMemphis
Member
4 years 6 months ago

…other than our company? We must fight, and we must fight intelligently. If we fail, then at a least we know that we tried to win. Sitting by, waiting for GM to bless a ‘deal’ is pure bullocks! LET THEM SPIN. I care not.

mike saunders
Member
4 years 6 months ago

Again, answer for what? For securing its IP from foreign ownership? For protecting its market share? For aggressively trying to recoup the US government investment?

What other facts are there?

rune
Member
4 years 6 months ago
Actually… What are we discussing here? “License GM technology”. Well, what does that mean exactly? I assumed/believed it was a contract allowing Saab to put certain parts in the 9-5. As an example the new 220 bhp direct injection engine (introduced MY10). But it has to be something more substantial than that? Are we talking about accessing proprietary information allowing Saab to produce (or contract a supplier to produce) certain parts? Then I agree the question is a bit complicated, but at the end of the day I would say a simple contract stating “the parts xx to yy are… Read more »
Angelo V.
Member
4 years 6 months ago

I’ve thought of the same basic premise. In fact, aren’t the Chinese considered the absolute best in the world at reverse engineering?

Snowshoe
Member
4 years 6 months ago

Yup, precisely what I have been stating on di.se and other places.

Saab already knows the technology
It is not a matter of technology transfer it is a matter of usage of technology in a defined context of a certain car model, namely the NG 9-5.

The 9-4X is an even more stupid argument since it is GM that makes it.

davidgmills
Member
4 years 5 months ago
Hey Barry. (Called you today by the way). Cain is a corporate stooge but I put no stock in what he says. GM has a price. If GM were offered ten billion dollars for Saab, GM would be licensing all kinds of shit to whoever the buyer was. Cain’s commentary is just negotiating BS. What happens in settlement negotiations all the time is that one party often will attempt to shut off negotiations for what ever reason because they believe that no reasonable offer is forthcoming. It has never ceased to amaze me how many times in litigation if someone… Read more »
BarryMemphis
Member
4 years 5 months ago

Hey David, great to hear from you. I fully understand the premise that EVERYTHING has a price. If someone offered enough…perhaps they could buy GM! That isn’t the point. The point is that (through Cain) GM has stated that they want Saab dead. And, to the extent that they can make it happen, they intend that to be the result. A rediculous offer to appease GM or to get their ‘approval’ is just that, and will not happen.

Scire
Member
4 years 6 months ago
Why are the major automobile (news) media outlets (print, online, television, magazines) NOT exposing GM’s ineptitude on how they handled Saab and are handling (or their apparent draconian-style) of the on-going Saab sale? Nothing from Motor Trend, Car & Driver, Road & Track, Top Gear (UK), etc.)!! GM is a hugely protected (cancer-like) company that has been deep in the pockets of all politicians in the US. Surely, there was “technology” in Saabs before GM and there should be after… especially with the likes of BMW and such. But even America’s consumer review and (supposed) advocate organization, Consumer Reports, has… Read more »
dave lewis
Member
4 years 6 months ago
You are forgetting to take your medicine. The auto media isn’t against Saab, they just don’t care. Why should they. There are new models coming out all the time. Why rehash yesterdays news which is old. GM does suck and never should have been bailed out. But, while saying that, GM isn’t doing anything wrong. They had a deal with an entity. That entity is gone. They aren’t under any obligation to anyone else. Would it be “nice” if they lent a hand. Yes. But they don’t have to. I believe Consumer Reports needs a certain amount of cars to… Read more »
Snowshoe
Member
4 years 6 months ago

Whether legal or not does not help since the judgement of that would come way too late. Thus there is no point in taking that route.
Was GM in their rights to say no to every effort to raise outside funds? It might be a breach of a contract to refuse to deliver. But that does not help us at this moment.

davidgmills
Member
4 years 5 months ago
Why do you say GM should not have been bailed out? Why do you hate workers so much? The bail out saved a million US jobs. GM has had horrible bean counter Wall Street driven management which wrecked the company in the same way that Wall Street is wrecking the world. But I am glad these American workers have their jobs. Kudos to the government for saving them. Too bad Sweden wouldn’t do the same for Saab and Volvo. We bailed out Wall Street to the tune of trillions with its pseudo economy. Compared to it GM and Chrysler were… Read more »
Douglas Brown
Member
4 years 6 months ago

I believe GM’s full intent right from the start, is to completely shutdown Saab. And they seem to be systematically doing it by talking to parties and denying their offers. GM is sick! They GM-ized Saab when they should have let the Swedes use all of their own technology. Swede technology is way better than GM technology!! I hope Saab somehow makes it through this! There’s got to be a silver lining somewhere!

Troels, Denmark
Member
4 years 6 months ago

+++

wpDiscuz