Time for Maud Olofsson to respond

UPDATE below
GM have had their say.
It’s time for the Swedish government to respond, and Swedish Deputy Prime Minister Maud Olofsson will do just that at 11am Swedish time.
Apparently the government has copped some flak in the Swedish media this morning. They’ve taken a principled stand against taking an ownership stake in Saab, preferring to play chicken with GM whilst some other European governments extend solid support in contravention of some European Union rules.
GM have indicated that they’re going to cut and run. It’s time for the Swedish government to make a decision one way or another.
They can either support Saab, co-operate with GM and try to see Saab through to independence on January 1, 2010.
Or they can support Saab through a reorganisation process starting March 2009.
The final option is the disappearance of Saab from the automotive landscape, an option that I’m sure none of us want to see.
Dippen tells us that apparently Saab are due to have a board meeting tomorrow. Oh to be a fly on the wall there.
IMPORTANT – Any of you Swedes who can help us out with a summary of Ms Olofsson’s presentation, please feel free to email me at swade99-at-dodo.com.au
“talkingfuture” has linked up a Times Online article that spells out a few things quite neatly.

Saab, the Swedish carmaker owned by America’s General Motors (GM), could go bust within ten days without an immediate injection of state aid, the US company warned last night…..
…..However, GM said that Saab was losing so much money so quickly that, without government intervention to secure its future, the subsidiary could be forced to file for reorganisation by the end of this month.

And here’s why Maud Olofsson has been in the firing line for some….

“The Swedish state and taxpayers in Sweden will not own car factories,” Maud Olofsson, the industry minister, said. “Sometimes you get the impression that this is a small, small company but it is the world’s biggest automaker so we have a right to make demands.”

Demands are only worth making when the demandee has something to lose.

Comments are closed.

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.