Press release: Saab Automobile Update On Voluntary Reorganization

Trollhättan, Sweden: Swedish Automobile N.V. (Swan) announces that Saab Automobile AB and its subsidiaries Saab Automobile Powertrain AB and Saab Automobile Tools AB (collectively Saab Automobile) aim to submit their appeal on the District Court’s decision to reject Saab Automobile’s proposal for voluntary reorganization on Monday September 12, 2011.

In yesterday’s decision, the District Court argued that the application of Saab Automobile lacks evidence that the purpose of a formal reorganization can be fulfilled. The Court is of the opinion that the first reorganization of Saab Automobile cannot be considered to be a successful one. It is further unclear to the Court whether – and if so when – the Chinese authorities will approve the EUR 245 million equity contribution of Pang Da and Youngman and whether the planned funding will be sufficient to structurally solve Saab Automobile’s financial problems. The Court finds that it is unclear how Saab Automobile will be able to end the liquidity crisis and continue its business. The current stops in production are likely to have resulted in considerable loss of the goodwill of the company and an impairment of the Saab trademark.

Saab Automobile disagrees with this interpretation of the voluntary reorganization proposal and aims to submit its appeal on Monday September 12, 2011. After the court has received the appeal it is expected that a decision on the appeal is taken soon after.

In the meantime, Swan and Saab Automobile continue discussions with several parties about obtaining additional funding for the short term.

Swan will update the market on further developments.

86 thoughts on “Press release: Saab Automobile Update On Voluntary Reorganization”

  1. Is it not time to organize another “get together” in Sweden and other countries to show the District Court that at least their argument of “loss of goodwill” is a false argument?
    Come on Victor; do not give up.

    • I choose to look at it this way: By injecting false arguments into their verdict, they helped Saab’s appeal process. This way, Saab will get a (hopefully) positive ruling by a higher court and this will help quiet down the critics.

      I doubt the court system is corrupt, much unlike swegov. The latter we probably should have protested more against, but I think we’d need 20000 people for that, not just 2500 (which we’ve already done).

      • Hard to see why the court say no and then try to help saab to get a yes in higher court.
        The best thing had be if the court asked for more information.

        They said it was a bit vague information, so how they even could say anything if they are unsure is beyond my mind, instead of asking for more information from Saab..

        • Well, when you file for reconstruction it is, in this case, Saab’s responsibility to provide sound argumentation as well as facts on which the court make a decision. There is no investigation involved. The judges look at whatever evidence is presented and make their ruling on what information is provided.

          • I have to agree here. It’s the company’s job to provide as much information, proof and documents of factual agreements as possible to the decision makers.

            If Saab/VM got “expert” advice that they wouldn’t have to do that, it was a) really crappy advice, b) they should have known better as this is SAAB we’re talking about.

      • as I have written on InsideSaab, in an Italian scenario, the court would say no, knowing that there would be an appeal and the decision will have to be taken by a higher court …. a way to pass the problem onto someone else without deciding …

        • VM addressed several of those already.

          The court claimed that the previous reorganisation had proved to be a failure, completely ignoring GM’s decision to start the liquidation process of Saab in January 2010. By the time Spyker finally were allowed to buy Saab, a lot of work (and money) went into putting Saab back on track.

          This event alone was definitively not taken into account in the original business plan and certainly backtracked many of the good efforts put in during the reconstruction back in 2009.

          Or to put it differently: The reconstruction was a success until swegov objected to Antonov. That first *preliminary* report made by NDO has proven to be a disaster for Saab.

          The Chinese deals, etc, are also a big part of the puzzle. The court’s rejection of these plans seems a bit odd.

          • No timeplan for the chinese, no timeplan for the bridgeloan, no organisation named that is interested in investing in saab, no production, almost no income from sales, almost zero sales. According to swedish law you cannot allow a reorganisation where there is a possibility that the company will be more indebted after the three month period than it currently is. That mean VM has to prove to the court that production and sales will run soon otherwise there is NO legal ground for a reconstruction. I fail to see what VM stated in the application that change this into a possible positive outcome if I see it from the courts perspective.

            And frankly there’s been a lot of “around the corner”. Sorry folks – bankruptcy on monday-tuesday and it will be dirty!

  2. So is there any Plan X other than to appeal? Did VM note something lately?

    Also, the press release mentions only the search for short-term funding. And what about the US investors? EU major bank? I believe these sources were to provide more or less substantial funding…

  3. It seems to have come as a surprise to some journalists, during the press conference after Saab had filed for reconstruction, but also this morning in an interview with VM on the Swedish Radio (national public radio), that Saab has enough money to pay the salaries but they can’t favour one over another, the employees instead of suppliers. I don’t know if they have enough or not. But one thing is clear, and I thought the journalists understood that, the situation is now different, another case. We know that some suppliers has sent their demands to the Swedish DEA, and a smaller amount of them have said that the DEA should go forward, after the initial phase, and try to collect money, since some weeks. Thus Saab can’t favour their own employees, even if they have enough money for the salaries; as I said I don’t know. Indeed a very sad situation.

    Even more so, when Clepa and FKG suddenly said that they were positive and would cooperate with Saab, if Saab wanted to pay all or some of the debts (as we know Saab’s intention has always been to pay all, when possible), if Saab was allowed to go into reorganization.

    So, now we have a situation where some members of FKG or Clepa (I assume) have ordered the Swedish DEA (well, several weeks ago) to go and collect money; this stops Saab from paying salaries, and this could end with one or several unions filing for bankruptcy.

    These organisations, FKG and Clepa, should have coordinated the work much better. Now, when there is a risk that they receive nothing, they are ready to cooperate. Well, some of their members must have shot themselves in the foot. What a failure.

    It seems like Saab is going to appeal on Monday, well I wrote this for another post, it’s already mentioned here. 🙂 VM mentioned that one possibility, apart from appealing again to the last court, is to find someone willing to pay the salaries from outside Saab.

    “The Court is of the opinion that the first reorganization of Saab Automobile cannot be considered to be a successful one.”

    Bah! How did they come to that conclusion, and is that the present management’s fault? After that reorganization GM tried to sell Saab, but later started a winding down process, and Spyker bought it in the last minute. The shape and position wasn’t exactly as after the reorganization. And anyhow it is of very minor interest in this case

    • But surely on cannot disagree with the statement that the previous reconstruction was unsuccessful. The purpose of a reconstruction is to end up with a company that makes and sells products with a profit – and here we are talking short-term NOT long term.

      It was early in 2010 that Saab was saved from bankruptcy by Spyker taking over from GM. One year later things started to get really difficult. To keep a company going for 12 months surely cannot be regarded as “success”.

      I think it is sad that Saab now is in a very distressed situation, but only the management can be blaimed. All those who made commitments have lived up to what was stated in contracts, but Saab management has not.

      • It was early in 2010 that Saab was saved from bankruptcy by Spyker taking over from GM.

        No. Saab was saved from liquidation. Its owner at the time had decided to shut down Saab due in large part to NDO’s preliminary report on Antonov. As VM said, the suppliers had been told to politely go away — there was never going to be any production of cars in THN ever again.

      • “It was early in 2010 that Saab was saved from bankruptcy by Spyker taking over from GM.”
        You don’t know what you are talking about, Sadim; but you just have to argue, don’t you?

        I said winding down process. See Rune’s reply, liquidation.

        • Well, it’s nice to meet an expert now and again Tripod. My memory tells me this: In 2009 Saab went through six months of reconstruction. It came out of reconstruction and Koeningsegg was supposed to take over. K-segg pulled out and Spyker took over as of Feb 2010.

          Any mistakes there, Tripod?

          During the six months following end of recontruction very little profit would have been made, and if Spyker had not taken over Saab woulkd probably have been forced into bankruptcy?

          Could you please point out where my facts are wrong instead of just saying I want to argue?

          • Any mistakes there, Tripod?

            You are leaving out many events that took place in that period of time. Why did Koenigsegg pull out? Why was Spyker’s first bid rejected? What happened after that? etc…etc…

          • Rune, if you like (and choose to pay me) I could write a complete essay on the topic and include every little detail.

            I was, however, trying to keep my post short.

            The matter of interest and what we were discussing, is: Was the previous reconstruction a success or not. I have seen no account here descibing whatever parts of the 2009-reconstruction can be considered a success.

          • Sadim, you were trying to avoid the crucial detail of Saab being put into liquidation after swegov dropped the ball on both k-egg and spyker.

            That alone was a very significant detail as explained in several comments in this thread.

          • Rune, could you please provide a non-SU reference (and preferably not a Swedish socialist/trades union one either) that states that “swegov dropped the ball on both k-egg and spyker”?

            If we are going to argue about facts we need more that just some old SU-hearsay.

          • @Sadim
            You should really write essay, without payment.
            If not, how come you expect people to answer you in depth without payment?

            State your case in full, and you might get answers in full.
            Until then:

            I have another perception than yours, and I think that you have missed details and information
            Please prove me wrong 😉

          • @Khrisdk

            How on earth should I be able to know what your “perceptions” are, and what you might “think”? And without knowing that – how do I prove you wrong?

          • Rune, could you please provide a non-SU reference

            Officially K-egg kept a low profile after they pulled out. Do you remember that they posted an ultimatum? To who was that ultimatum addressed?

          • @sadim
            You can not.
            Just as I can not know your perceptions and what you think without your unpaid essay.

            We are on all points in equal positions, not stating anything but opinion

      • I partially agree with you Sadim. I am not an expert in law and or economics, but by any logical criteria the last reconstruction cannot be considered a success. If that was not the case, Saab would have been a profitable or at least sustainable company by now.

        However, I firmly believe they would have make it if Swedish government in cohorts with EIB didn’t conspire against Saab. Looking at all that happenend since Spyker took over I can flat out say, that those two parties sabotaged any and every effort made by Saab to succed. So, in all honesty I can not blame the management.

        • SpinM, Check out Rune’s reply above. At teh time everybody where surprised that Saab was able to come out of the reconstruction so fast and so well set up. GM decided to kill Saab and VM managed to convince them not to.

          I do not think today’s Saab should be faulted for what happened under GM management.

          • The post-GM management Spyker team accepted to purchase Saab, accepted the business plan, accepted the terms of EIB-loans etc. The team in question i.e. VM is responsible for the situation today……Nobody else. Not the media, not the EIB, not SweGov…

          • Sadim, it wasn’t unreasonable to believe that swegov would let Antonov invest money once NDO’s report was finished. The final report acquits Antonov and in a free market economy there are no reasons to not let him invest his money. NDO agrees with this.

            I see no problems blaming EIB for this. And swegov’s lackluster handling of this issue is reproachable to say the least.

            Could you please inform us of your connection with swegov? Are you a party member? Did you vote for them? Are you in their employ? What?

          • Rune, what sort of questions are those?

            I think they are highly inappropriate. Still, I can tell you I have no ties with SweGov, I am not even allowed to vote in Sweden.

            And re the initial agreement between Spyker, EIB, SweGov and GM maybe should have been changed or not is a non-issue. Syker signed the agreement and are/were forced to live with it.

            It’s ridiculous to say it’s the Govt’s fault. But I know your kind: It’s everybody else’s fault…..do you blame bad weather on SweGov too?

          • I think they are highly inappropriate.

            Think what you will, but I find it very strange to see someone so forcefully defend putting 10000 people out of a job.

            And re the initial agreement between Spyker, EIB, SweGov and GM maybe should have been changed or not is a non-issue. Syker signed the agreement and are/were forced to live with it.

            Spyker signed up at a time when they still had Antonov aboard. After swegov sabotaged Antonov’s stake in Spyker, Spyker was effectively left as the only game in town. Nobody else fought GM’s decision to close down Saab.

            They were already running on overtime at this point. That clock started when K-egg announced that they had to get answers by the end of October before they could commit fully to the deal. Unfortunately, they did not get the insurances their business plan required. I believe swegov was one of the players that K-egg wanted timely answers from.

            As I said: Once NDO cleared Antonov, it was NOT unreasonable to assume he would be let in as an investor again.

            Swegov has consistently failed to act in a timely manner, and the rumour that swegov and EIB conspired to block Antonov does seem to be what likely transpired. Their actions speak louder than words.

          • But Rune, all you are writing about is wishful thinking. The original contract stated clearly that Antonov would not be allowed to participate.

            You can think this and that, wish this and that – but fact remains: All those involved KNEW there was little chance that Antonov would be let in.

            And finally, I am NOT pleased to see some 5-6000 folks lose their jobs. But if that is what’s going to happen we can look at other similar shut-down and that after some years many new prosperous companies evolve from the ashes.

          • Sadim, I think what one can blame the Swedish government for is the standoffish attitude and their habit of saying that they have done so much. What could be added to that is the handling of Antonov vs. EIB and I think you have to be extremely forgiving if you say they did a good job of that.

            SweGov – should have spoken out positively for the Swedish car industry and not claim that their existence solely laid in the hands of the Americans.

            SweGov – should have made funds available in line with other European governments with reasonable payback terms adjusted according to the long term nature of the automotive business and not a 6-month full amortizing period.

            SweGov – should have taken action to save Swedish jobs for the future. If they didn’t care about Saab in Trollhättan at least they could have made sure the suppliers had no problems.

            SweGov – shouldn’t have used cheap one-liners about ‘nobody buying the cars’ or ‘Saab never being profitable’ or ‘should rather build wind power plants’

            Instead SweGov trash talked Saab and the industry and they managed to get Volvo sold off to the Chinese and if we are lucky also Saab.

            What a great result for a government that was elected on bringing back the jobs and NOT having people living on the tax payers money

            So there are a few things that can be lain in front of the government, everything? Surely not, but we don’t live in a world where everything is black or white.

          • But I know your kind: It’s everybody else’s fault…</blockquote

            Shall we leave it at that, or do you want to take a discussion about all kinds of people?

            "You're telling me I ain't Kind, but I'm just not your kind" (Megadeth)

          • The original contract stated clearly that Antonov would not be allowed to participate.

            You have seen the original contract? (contract between who btw?)

          • If it would have been ‘common knowledge’ that VA would not be let in any circumstance then why did NDO not say no to the application right from the start, but actually APPROVED Vladimir?!

            It is clear that someone is not telling the truth. If Swe Gowt was blocking VA because he was the money behind VM in the first place, then then we have the question did VM know that there was no chance in hell to get VA in as an owner or were they lead to believe otherwise?
            Then why put up the show when Maud could have simply shown the door to VA and say Saab needs to get their investors from elsewhere. Period?

            It’s VM’s and JÅJ’s fault though that they couldn’t handle the liquidity of the company better thus forced to seek new investments that EIB had the potential of blocking.

            IMO everyone involved has just screwed up royally here. I wonder how much all the fancy hotel meetings/dinners and all the lawyer fees trying to make up new deals have cost Saab in the end. A start-up type of company cannot afford stuff like that, but need to save.
            It was bit like with the dot com “millioners” that had no revenue into the company but huge expenses.
            If VM want to continue he’s got to change his way about spending. If Saab is saved again and SWAN continues I urge him to calculate how many cars they have to sell in order to just pay back the EIB loan and new investments/loans coming in? Successful business is about cash flow not lending money.

            Just build cars (for a profit) that people want to buy badly. This is why you take loans in the first place, not to pay fixed costs and wait for a jackpot somewhere in the future.

        • SpinM,
          “I am not an expert in law and or economics, but by any logical criteria the last reconstruction cannot be considered a success. If that was not the case, Saab would have been a profitable or at least sustainable company by now.”

          The reorganization, under the GM era, when GM had to file themselves (and no, chapter 7/11 are not exactly the same as in Sweden), was filed in February 2009; Saab exited reorganization in August 2009, if I remember correct.

          During that summer there were discussions with Koenigs, when they backed out GM started to winding down Saab.

          You don’t have to have studied law or economics (I have, as a complement to a degree in engineering, but it’s not interesting here) to understand that if someone months after exit of reorganization starts to shut down things; telling everyone and his dog that they are going to close Saab, as they did with other brands, that then the position of this nearly liquidated company is something completely different than months earlier, just after reorganization. That said, there are always things to do better. They have been working on cutting costs, I understand, since becoming independent, and they want reorganise if allowed reconstruction/reorganization.

          • Tripod, thank you for your elaboration. For me it really sheds light on cronology – I only found about SU when this phase was over, so I guess I missed that part. I am in total agreement with you and the court should heed to your argumentation…that is, to consider the last reconstruction as irrelevant to their decission making. But basically – the end result still is a fail and it makes me sad. Well…let’s not call it an end.

            Even so, I remain a firm believer in Saab brand. After all, inspite of the grave situation I decided to go for a new 9-3 which I am enjoying for about a month now. Knowing then, what I know now, I would still buy it. The car is simply great.

  4. HALLO SWEDEN? HERE IN BELGIUM WE BELIEVE IN SAAB!!!!!!!
    NEVER GIVE UP!!!!!
    THE gouvernement in sweden dont like saab,shame on jou!!!!!!
    wel, saab jour welcome in belgium in de site of opel in antwerp!!!!!!!!

  5. Victors last stand perhaps?

    Reading various comments posted yesterday and other media sources, I don’t think that another go at reconstruction is a good idea for Saab. It is for the current management and I’m sure that they don’t want to let go of the company.

    Re-reading the previous reconstruction application, it appears that a great deal of GM baggage still exists within the company, which has been an expensive on cost. Heavily concentrating on the USA market at the expense of other markets has been a huge mistake.

    In the UK there was hardly any high profile advertising and today I actually saw for the first time a new 9-5 on the road.

    Liquidation although unpleasant and with no predictable outcome may be the answer to saving Saab as a going concern and a way to strip out all the excessive on costs. A small volume manufacturer needs to be lean and mean and new management is the way to go.

    Victor should be admired for what he has achieved. Saab as an independent company has been a hard challenge, turning around a manufacturing unit (factory) of a global car company into standalone working business.

    Should we arrive at a liquidation sale, there would appear to be a number of potential bidders and we could end up with a situation were the company sells for far more than its net assets.

    The potential bidders as far as I can tell are:

    Vladimir Antonov
    BAIC
    Pang Da & Youngman

    And as mentioned in previous postings some well healed Swedish consortium.

    Oh and possibly Bernie Ecclestone (he’s got a few million to spare).

    The phoenix throws itself into the fire to be reborn again. Maybe its time to strike the match and light the fire.

    • But what about the brand name? Is there any possibility that the Brand name continues to be on new cars after a possible (god forbid) bankruptcy? I’ve understood the answer is no to that question. Please tell me if I’m wrong.

      • My belief (whatever that might be worth) is that this could very well be a matter of negotiation. If a viable company were to be formed, based on Swedish automotive know-how i.e. the folks in Trollhättan, I think the owners of the brand would look at it quite favourably.

        But if all tools etc were shipped of to China or elsewhere I would say: No way.

        • Saab AB has already stated that if Saab Automobile AB goes on liquidation they will not lend the name to any other company.
          If it’s over it’s over, but it’s not over till it’s over.

      • Considering the alternatives, would losing the brand name be such an insurmountable obstacle? Of course, I understand that establishing a new brand name would be difficult and expensive, but isn’t it more important to be Saab than to be calledSaab?

        I see it this way:
        – Enthousiasts and long-term customers will still know the car behind the new brand.
        – Non-enthousiasts are not buying Saab today, because they are concerned about long-term viability, used car price when they want to sell etc. However, if they didn’t have to worry about that part and all magazines stated “New Brand is built by the engineers that built Saab, so we know it’s superior and our test drives prove it…etc” why would they not buy?
        – Better for the company to own its own brand name and build goodwill on it. I’m afraid the court is right, by and large Saab has lost a lot of goodwill, because people cannot follow everything that is happening or understand it.
        – And anyway, “wouldn’t a rose by any other name smell just as sweet?”

        I don’t know, just my opinion. Although I think that whichever way they go, management must do a better job managing not only the press or impressions, but the company and its commitments. Unfortunately, most of their planning seems to be short-term, and I understand that it’s due to crisis, but sometimes I didn’t think that the medium or long term planning was there or solid (I don’t mean vision, by the way, VM and Saab management had a lot of that, I meant the practicalities). Granted things didn’t go quite as planned, but shouldn’t the contingency plans have been in place and checked a long time ago?

    • Motoradd,
      I still don’t see why liquidation should be good for Saab.
      The most probable outcome of a liquidation is:
      -Saab AB is not willing to lend the name to anyone else.
      -The machinery is sold to whoever to pay the debts (NDO and GM are first on the list, so say Kronofogen)
      -Maybe somebody will buy the IP of the Phoenix modular platform, maybe not.
      -AAM claims the IP on the e-AAM electric rear axle.
      -Engineers move to Volvo as Volvo is still searching for engineers.
      And I forgot, some thousand people will get unemployed.

      To me liquidation looks like a not so good plan.

      • I was referring to purchasing the company as a whole entity, not a piecemeal sale.

        Any appointed administrator has a duty to get the best price for the creditors, so selling Saab as a going concern will be the main priority.

        The worst possible scenario is breaking the company up into small pieces and making the workforce redundant.

        I get the feeling that no one is going to invest in Saab with the current management, but if the company is up for sale then I really believe that there are a number of organisations or individuals who will have a punt when it comes to auction.

        Everybody loves a bargain, just look at Ebay.

        • Sorry I don’t buy at ebay, as you find anything there but no bargains.
          Put this “selling the company as a whole entity” won’t happen.
          There is no white Dragon/white Knight lurking in the shadows. And if they are there they should step out of the shadows now.

          • I usually agree with you Red, but buying the company now would mean that all the debt must be taken care of, so lurking in the shadows actually make sense.
            I do not if this is the case, but it is not logical for a potential buyer to show his cards before a possible fall of the company, is it?

    • I just wonder how a arisky Bankruptcy would be BETTER than a managed reorganization?

      Liquidation although unpleasant and with no predictable outcome may be the answer to saving Saab as a going concern and a way to strip out all the excessive on costs.

      There are no guarantees that the name can be kept. There are no guarantess that they are able to produce any cars unless GM gives them the right. There are no guarantess that they get funding.

      A small volume manufacturer needs to be lean and mean and new management is the way to go.

      Isn’t Saab already a small operation compared to the competition. You still need a critical mass of employees in order to operate and halfing the manpower in response to halved saled is not an option if you want to stay alive.

      No, It is reorganization or the chopping block. The state will sell what they can after they take over the securities to pay back the EIB. Perhaps some pieces can be picked up but it will not be Saab.

      Perhaps if the employees starts two new companies, one to rebuild all the buildings and one to clean them, then will get a lot of state support mopney, but only then. 😉

    • @Motoradd’s Cat
      Your list of possible bidders is way too short. The Company should be offered for sale as a going concern, whioch would clear out all the existing shareholders and with them the present management. As a clean investment it may well attract interest from a wide range of industrial companies.

      • Yes I am sure there are more out there than the ones I listed.

        It would have to be sold as a going concern and debt free (the sale should see to that).

        I would not be suprised if the people who caused the problems in the first place (certain component suppliers) put a consortium together and bid. It would be in their interest and possibly this is the whole point – a subtle takeover bid.

        What better way to get control of Saab. No parts = No Cars = Cash Flow Crises = Liquidation = Saab Sold (to a Swedish consortium?).

        It’s a dog eat dog world when it comes to big business.

  6. Unfortunately this was more estimated verdict of Court. Have in mind pls. Government point of view: no money of tax-payers into problematic businesses…

  7. I think that court’s reasoning are (unfortunately) 100% correct

    The Court is of the opinion that the first reorganization of Saab Automobile cannot be considered to be a successful one.

    – If the company is requesting new reorganization in 21 months time from the last one, it is clear that the first reorganization was not successful.

    It is further unclear to the Court whether – and if so when – the Chinese authorities will approve the EUR 245 million equity contribution of Pang Da and Youngman and whether the planned funding will be sufficient to structurally solve Saab Automobile’s financial problems.

    – No-one knows whether Saab gets the money, and 95m€ (245m€ -150m€ Saab’s overdue debt) is not enough to keep the company running for more than few months (and definately not enough to develop new models)

    The Court finds that it is unclear how Saab Automobile will be able to end the liquidity crisis and continue its business.

    – Victor has been working 24/7 since spring to solve this crisis – without results. Changes of getting new investors/lenders have not exactly gone up in last few days.

    The current stops in production are likely to have resulted in considerable loss of the goodwill of the company and an impairment of the Saab trademark.

    – The most important point. Saab’s brand is so damaged, that it will take at least 5 years until buying public has any faith again. It does not take a expert to figure out that reaching 100,000 sold cars per year would’t happen any time soon.

    • No-one knows whether Saab gets the money, and 95m€ (245m€ -150m€ Saab’s overdue debt) is not enough to keep the company running for more than few months (and definately not enough to develop new models)

      Excuse me, but is it the case in Sweden that only companies who are able to state “oh yeah, 40 days from now we will definitively get paid enough to pay our creditors” (and back this statement up with evidence) are allowed reconstruction?

      BTW: Do you know how much money is required to finish developing the next 9-3 based on the phoenix-platform?

    • ” If the company is requesting new reorganization in 21 months time from the last one, it is clear that the first reorganization was not successful.”

      Excuse my ignorance on this matter but wasn’t the last reorganisation carried out under GM, who then failing to conclude a sale with Koeniggsegg decided to press the liquidate button. Surely this meant that the company Spyker bought was in a far worse state than the company that had exited a successful reorganisation?

    • I agree with you on most of your points, but not with respect to the last. If the buyer would be a powerful group, that could lift the standing quite easily. It just implies substantial investments into the dealer network and marketing as well. Any solution, that is small and above all with the current shareholders, is doomed to fail.

  8. I just picked up parts at the Saab dealer for around 2000 EUR. So I injected some money 😉

    It’s not easy to build up trust on the notes of reject. It must to be very clear that chinese money is comming and that money is there to bypass the reorganisation period.

    It Saab must fill bancruptcy (or someone do it) the facilities are worthless without production and use of facilities. To make the hall free for an oter use the costs are to high. What can be made into money to pay outstanding debts?

    So the only case suppliers and also employees get their money is ramp up again the production. But in this case they must archive a volume of 100k+ in a short time (BRIC strategy and US/ GB). I would give it a try, it can’t really get more worth.

  9. Regarding, if the last reconstruction was or was not successful, I think we ALL can agree on the fact that IF GM had not been in the trouble it was in 2008, stating that Saab would be sold OR shut down, goodwill of the company had not been demolished to the point that was played out before our very eyes in 2009.
    It´s very easy to sit in front of a computer and blame the management for the state Saab is in right now. But that is very arguable to be honest…
    Yes, it all comes down to sales. And yes, the management may have been to optimistic about sales (they have stated this themselves about 6 months ago so it is no news)
    But WHY did the sales go down? Well if you remove that besserwisser-filter in front of your eyes (to all nay-sayers I might add, and have a look at what has happened, you might think differently about the management.
    1. GM states that Saab will be sold or shut down:
    .. Uncertainty about the future of Saab occurs and potential car-byers decide to wait and not by a Saab until the future unfolds.
    2. Saleprocess is long and the falling of sales makes Saab forced to go into reconstruction.
    ..More badwill. Sales decreases even more.
    3. Sale is stalled by forces that somehow is unveiled. It might be GM, it might be Swedish Government, EIB etc etc.
    4.. Konigsegg drops out, due to the stalling. They see that the businessplan may not work. That the damage done may hurt the business plan.
    5… More badwill… sales dropping
    6.. GM decides to shut Saab down. Liquidation starts
    7.. Sales are dropped to nothing. Goodwill for the brand is out of the window…
    8.. Spyker manages to buy the company while it is DEAD!! and it takes an enormous amount of time and money to restart Saab
    9 Goodwill rises
    10. Production starts. NG 9-5 comes out. 9-4X on the way
    11. Sales are picking up
    12. More goodwill for the brand.
    13. December 2010. Sales have been to low due to the damage done in 2009. Cashflow is to negative, but sales are increasing.
    14. April. One supplier plays poker and wont supply Saab due to unpaid bills.
    15. Others follow like an avalance to to what happened in 2009
    16. Badwill starts again
    17. No production. No sales. No cashflow- Badwill starts…
    18… Hope is gone for most of people, and find it VERY easy to put the blame on VM and the management.

    One cannot just wonder what MIGHT have happened if GM had chosen to keep Saab, and rolled out the NG models as planned?

    BUT it is not in our position to blame VM. The damage was probably done long before he stepped in.

    • Good Summary DanielB and all for free. Sadim waants to charge us for this knowledge. 😉

      It is easay to deny facts that ren’t present but it is much more difficult if they are right in front of you.

      Most of the comments on DI.se are based on invented facts, also known as lies.

    • +1 Daniel B. Based on the available info, that’s a good timeline demonstrating why VM deserves credit (pardon the pun) for what he has been trying to do in exceedingly difficult circumstances, come what may.

      As if we needed more proof that Swedish officialdom doesn’t like colourful, maverick individuals. They’ll be banning Thomas Di Leva concerts, next!

      • Thanx all, and sorry for the misspells and whatnot… Try to work and typing on SU at the same time:D

        But one has to bear in mind that going from +120 000 cars sold / year to 30 000 is not VM´s doing but GM´s/ SWE GOV, EIB and foremost the MEDIA!
        Even though, the situation is what it is and it is painful to see how much badwill this fantastic brand and carmaker has gotten the past 2 years..

        The thing that upsets me the most is that people seems to think that there is an equal sign between how the sale has been decreasing and the quality of the cars themselves, which is so totally wrong. It´s all business and corporate politics, and it would be nice for once if motor journos could concentrate on the cars themselves and really spell it out how great the new Saabs are. Robert Collinhas been pretty good at this as far as the 9-4 X goes etc.

        Anyway. Time will tell, But it is indeed sad.

  10. Sadim: I think your defence of your original statement does not hold water. Discussing whose fault the current situation is, is besides the point. (regardless of how much I enjoy that discussion, because swegov’s incompetence and malice cannot be overstated too much)

    As soon as GM put Saab into liquidation January 2010, they effectively changed Saab a lot from the Saab that came out of reconstruction 2009.

    It matters not that Spyker thought they could turn Saab around again. And yeah, it doesn’t really matter what swegov did or did not do.

    Not when we are discussing the court’s assertion that the previous reconstruction was unsuccessful. At the end of 2009, Saab looked healthy. In the beginning of 2010, during liquidation, it did not look healthy. The production was not running and it would take time to get it up and running again. Completely different health status for the company and it did indeed undo all the good work put in during the first reconstruction.

    Spyker almost managed to turn the tide, but now they say they need a little more time. Referring back to the 2009 reconstruction is irrelevant.

  11. I’m really sick and tired of Viktor Müller and all his lies. He doesn’t have any binding agreement with Chinese customers. He doesn’t have a contract with BMW for engine supply. He doesn’t have a sustainable plan for the company.
    I watched the first 10 minutes of the press conference held during Wednesday and he didn’t say anything in concrete. Except for “I want to keep working, I want to save the company”.
    C’mon folks! He doesn’t know where he is at the moment. He doesn’t have a management team to support his decisions. Saab is not Spyker, it is a complex company trying to survive in a whirlwind of problems. He shouldn’t have let Jan Åke Jonsson go. In my opinion Jan Åke left before being associated with a character such as VM. He saw it coming. I saw it coming when he stepped out so suddenly.

    Don’t get me wrong, I want Saab Automobile to survive and to be a profitable company and to start producing cars again. But I full understand and support Vänersborg District Court’s decision.
    VM book of excuses is near the end. We would’ve been in much better hands should Christian von Koenigsegg had bought the company.
    I never liked VM, to be honest. But I really wanted him to succeed. I really did.

    Wake up people.

    • I’m really sick and tired of Viktor Müller and all his lies. He doesn’t have any binding agreement with Chinese customers. He doesn’t have a contract with BMW for engine supply. He doesn’t have a sustainable plan for the company.

      Calm down.

      The Youngman and Pang Da deals are well known at this point. Spokespersons for those two companies have also been quoted in Chinese media making statements to this effect.

      The BMW deal is still on AFAIK. The press conference with a BMW representative present seemed real enough (http://saabsunited.saabklubben.se/2010/09/notes-from-saabbmw-press-conference.html).

      What exactly have you heard?

      I saw it coming when he stepped out so suddenly.

      Basically you have a gut feeling and are reading tea leaves. You should have watched the whole press conference. There was some amusing moments, like when one reporter said “I read in the papers that…” and VM cut him off with “and of course you believed that?” (or something to that effect, VM’s quip was funny but I can’t remember his exact phrasing).

      • Dear Rune, don’t want to hurt feelings or take this personal. But (there’s always a but), the Chinese deal is not approved neither by the Chinese Government nor for the European Authority. Until that happens, it’s all a matter of good will between two companies, not reality.
        Regarding the BMW deal, you’re quoting a press conference held on September 29th 2010. Short of 365 days ago.
        I haven’t heard anything else, I don’t have ears in secret meetings. I’m just saying what’s evident.

        And yes, my take on JÅJ departure is just gut feeling. But you would expect that, should his departure had been organized, Saab would’ve presented a new CEO by the time the step down was announced. Or at least a couple months after that.
        VM is acting as CEO and President of the Board or whatever you want to call it, a guy with nil experience trying to steer a company in the worst storm.
        I don’t care about jokes and chuckles during the press conference. I want a realistic plan to get the company out of troubles, out of bankruptcy.

        • Hang on. Yes, the plan must be approved by NDRC (also European Authority? That is news to me), But: There is a legally binding agreement. Once approval has been received, the parties have no choice other than move forward.

          I’m just saying what’s evident.

          Your comment about there not being a BMW contract is the first of its kind that I’ve heard during these 365 days. Do you have anything to back up your statement?

          should his departure had been organized, Saab would’ve presented a new CEO by the time the step down was announced

          It is my understanding that they were looking (and that JÅJ notified VM of his decision already back in November or thereabouts), but when the troubles started they had to put the search on hold. I do not think hiring a CEO back in March would have been a good idea.

  12. 900SEB: Yes we are pretty much awake. But no, it’s you getting it wrong, because blaming Victor is much too late here. He makes it or fails. That are the only options left. No one is likely to pop in and rescue Saab. The times of this fairytale have passed by. So stating that Victor is no good does not help it at all.

      • And what would you say if Saab gets stabilised and prospering? Then all the support for VM does pay off, doesn’t it? I hope it would then satisfy you aswell. But as I said there is no second chance anymore, thus no better figure to make Saab finally succeed!

        Also there are a few things others mentioned lately: 1. Saab is still alive – thanks to Victor. 2. Saab produced 50,000 fantastic new cars – without Victor they were never on the roads today. While I respect your opinion that you don’t like him for some reason (maybe among which there are the so-called unkept promises) but one can’t blame him for not trying and believing – and to me this and the above mentioned feats of arms weigh so much more.

  13. It is too late to say anything, but when Saab go into bankruptcy maybe someone will win the benefit(get cheaper price to buy Saab).

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.

Close