SaabsUnited.com

So why is GM still a factor within this game to again save Saab?

Well its pretty simple, the current 9-3 is to a large extent a GM product. GM might no longer own the licenses and technology behind it but they certainly own the right to the parts which the car is made of.

Issue number one, engines. The 2,0 engine’s that were available in the 9-3 Griffin are GM products and anyone who wants to produce the car needs to buy them from GM. To adapt a new engine for a car takes around 12-16 months depending on how many certificates needs to be obtained and if the engine needs to be turbo converted. Homologation process for a brand new engine is not something done quickly.

Read the rest of this entry →

I used to work for Saab and I’m already missing the company and the people terribly. Like many of them, I’d love to work for Saab again if the conditions were right. But like many of them, I’d also need to know that the conditions were right.

I was only there for a short time and it was an absolute pleasure. I didn’t have the stress that others had because I had a job to come back to if things went awry. Other employees at Saab had their eggs all in the Saab basket. What’s more, they’d been living on the edge for two or three years by the time the company declared bankruptcy. Some of them have now gone elsewhere, whilst others are still looking. While everyone I know loves the company to bits, I’m pretty sure they’d want to feel some security before taking a decision to return.

If Saab is bought and returns to the automotive market, it will need to change. That much is a given. But change in what ways?

If I could sit down with each of the prospective buyers and have a chat with them, here’s what I’d want to know based on my own personal needs and interests…..

–

YOUNGMAN

What I’d like to know: Nothing. There’s nothing you can say to convince me that you’d be a good or competent owner for Saab Automobile, or that you’d be even slightly interested in preserving any of the Saab company that I know and love. Thanks for coming.

–

BRIGHTWELL

What I’d like to know: As you’ve been the most vocal, I’m going to ask you the most questions. All in the interests of getting to know you better, of course.

Who are you, exactly? And what do you plan to do with our car company?

I ask this because so far, you’re making all the right noises, but that’s not so hard to do if you’re just a little bit studious. If you’ve got any notion of the public sentiment around Saab, then you’ll know that talking about production in Sweden and retaining key staff (engineering, design, etc) is key to retaining any brand equity that you might be buying. But what are your plans, really?

What do you know about the car business? Because to me you smell a little like Cerberus, the group that took over Chrysler and nearly run it into the ground a few years ago. If you are indeed a holding company like that, then what are your long term plans for Saab, and who will you install in place at the company to execute those plans?

Who you put in place is important. One thing that came up time and again when I spoke to colleagues at Saab is that we carried on too much like the GM days after we had been sold. It was like very little had changed, except the logistical changes that were forced upon us. None of the key senior staff changed, for example, and that was probably a big mistake.

So what are you going to do, and who are you going to put in place to do it?

And finally, who’s behind you and how deep are your pockets? Can Saab be assured of a period where they can talk about their cars and their brand without having to worry about diversionary stories from the press? Are you going to list Saab on a stock exchange, or maintain life as a privately held company?

Thanks for being interested in Saab. I know some of your people attended the We Are Many, We Are Saab event in Holland a few weeks ago and hopefully you got a taste for the passion that exists for this company. All we need is something/someone to believe in.

–

MAHINDRA

What I’d like to know: What’s your angle? Are you in or out? Are you interested in building Saab cars, or not? And as with Brightwell, what sort of model would you put in place for managing the company?

You’re an interesting case. A lot of us have stars in our eyes when it comes to you, probably because of the relationship between Tata and Jaguar LandRover. We want to believe that you could do the same for Saab.

But why do you want Saab? There’s a wonderful ownership community and probably even a fair portion of the motoring press that would love to jump behind you if you would only come out and engage the public a little.

–

OTHERS

See MAHINDRA, above. I understand there are comercial confidentiality requirements, but it’d be great to know who you are and what your interest is in this wonderful brand.

——

Swade now writes mostly about cars at Swadeology.

Things are getting really interesting now. As administrator Hans Bergqvist told TT (as reported by AFP here) there are now up to five parties who are interested to buy Saab as a whole and talking to the administrators. So besides he ones we know (Youngman, Mahindra & Mahindra, Brightwell Holdings) there is at least one, if not two parties who prefer to remain unnamed for now. Time is a big factor for everybody and it looks like one of those unnamed parties visited Trollhättan last week. Hans Bergquist said that their goal is to get a deal done within two weeks. Good to hear.

I’d assume the thing that everybody asked himself most is which buyer would be the best. We first of all want Saab to survive this bankrupcy but still, if there is a choice why not look for the best fit. It’s a tough decision because the perfect suitor really has to be multi talented.
Read the rest of this entry →

You could see this as a follow-up to the post I did last week about a potential restart based on a 9-3 model alone or you could just see this as a bit of distraction while we are waiting for news to come. Either way is fine for me as this thoughts came out of some good discussions I had recently with members of our team. While we all thought that starting production based on the current 9-3 model would be a first step that could work we were drawing it a bit further asking us what should be next after the next 9-3 is there. I’ll put this into a bit of a fictional story to get you in the right mood for the discussion this piece is looking for…

So let’s imagine it’s early in 2014. The old generation 9-3 did a good job selling 35.000 units the year before after it has been refreshed when Saab was restarted in fall 2012. The next generation of the 9-3 just hit the market after it was presented at the IAA in 2013. For the first time in Saabs history hatch and Combi were released at the same time with a 3-door and convertible variant to debut at the Geneva motor show in March 2014. While that new 9-3 is expected to push up sales compared to the old model it is still pretty clear that it will not be enough to reach the break even point.
Read the rest of this entry →

Having reviewed this mornings editorial contributions by the many writers in the press, the headline everywhere is “Saab is dead”, which actually, right now, is true. Saab still costs money even though it has died. Anyone who ever said that a bankruptcy was the way to go has now been proven wrong! It was never a solution, Victor Muller knew this all too well, which is why he, together with his management team struggled so hard to save the company until there was nothing more to do.

What ever assets there are in Saab has been pawned which basically means that it has a fixed price on it and the companies which have pawned these were not stupid when they agreed to it, of course they saw that they could make use of these assets if Saab would become bankrupt or even make profit out of these if Saab were to survive. Thinking ahead and gambling is the language of business.

My opinion of the work of the administrators have always been fairly neutral, they are highly educated people, but there were things they could have done better and there are things that they have done very well and having watched the video interviews with them yesterday it is clear that these people have absolutely no training what so ever in being interviewed in front of a camera. They gave a fairly nervous impression but yet they knew exactly what to NOT say. They never said that this is over even though a lot of the newspapers would have liked to hear that (again).

The administrators did exactly what they were supposed to do yesterday, they told the truth! Saab is dead and its continuing to bleed and they have the job of finding someone who can take care of the body and then try to revive it in some way, shape or form. Can this be done?, absolutely, can it be done successfully? absolutely! and the administrators know this!
Read the rest of this entry →

If you look closely at the few news about Youngman’s plans for Saab it looks like they plan alter the current 9-3 so they don’t need GM’s IP. Of course this would mean that the current 9-5 and 9-4x are gone from Saabs portfolio as GM won’t license those models to Youngman. But why could the 9-3 work out without GM’s ok and how bad is the reduction to one model? Let’s take a look.

When the current 9-3 was developed the engineers hugely altered the Epsilon-I platform. It was said that this had been done to make sure the 9-3 was manufactured in Trollhättan only. As Spyker took over Saab this became a benefit as The 9-3 was the only model in the portfolio Saab did not have to pay license fees for. They still had a huge amount of GM stuff in the car but the IP of the 9-3 is owned by Saab. The task Youngman is facing now is to replace the GM stuff through other suppliers. This may be easy with certain parts but more difficult with others. In many cases it could even mean some improvement. The fact that Youngman themselves have big capacities when it comes to the manufacturing of parts will surely help here. Still, if Youngman want to start production within 15 weeks I’d expect this would not be enough to replace engines for example. Well, maybe GM would even deliver some parts – if they can’t block a deal, they could at least earn some money from Saab. But still, I am using common sense here and you can’t always apply that to GM.
Read the rest of this entry →

All of us who are watching the fate of Saab have been given only few news of what is going on since Saab declared bankrupcy. Somehow this silence is annoying, but on the other hand one might think that this is a sign that a lot of things are going on behind the scenes. But as we learned from various statements not even those who are concerned and threatened directly by the bankrupcy, like employees/unions and suppliers get the information they are looking for. Like them, I am not too happy about that to say the least. Not that I’d vote to make the whole process public but there are some who deserve to get information.

Today ttela published an interview with Fredrik Sidahl, CEO of FKG and Lars Holmqvist, CEO of CLEPA. They go pretty hard on the recievers for various reasons. Again, one is the lack of information, along with the question why the recievers didn’t follow Youngman’s invitation to China. The most likely answer may be that the recievers are still too busy examining Saab’s assets to get an overview and to estimate the company’s value. This took a long time for as I understand it they are just about to talk to the interested parties. True, this is the biggest bankrupcy in Sweden for a long time but if you face such a task you’d have to get there with appropriate manpower. Obviously this was not the case from the beginning as a third reciever was appointed just a few days ago.
Read the rest of this entry →