Fat Lady news snippets (What are GM and SweGov up to now?)

Top Gear on Friday featured an article about Saab’s current predicament. Saab now only days from disappearing?.

It mentions what we have heard elsewhere, that the Swedish Government say they will try persuading GM to allow Saab continued access to GM technology and parts.

That’s big of them. The Swedish Government has been fantastically unhelpful to Saab ever since its funding crisis started almost a year ago. It has turned down various foreign investors and chucked several administrative spokes in the wheels.

It might be too late now for it to make sympathetic noises.

— Paul Horrell, Top Gear

Yes, indeed. Actually Swegov’s fascination with the Chinese started long before then. Already a month after the sale to Spyker, Jöran Hägglund was quoted as saying that Chinese ownership would be the best option for Saab. I share his view to some degree, but his statement could be interpreted as an indirect attack on the company that did manage to buy Saab from GM. GM had actively disregarded any Chinese interest at that point and Swegov should have seen the writing on the wall. Yet they seem to have stuck with their “Chinese ownership”-mantra all this time.

What is best for Saab is survival. And they cannot survive if they sever all bonds with GM. At least not for quite some time. Swegov’s blindness to this fact is not helpful.

Thanks ‘chevy’ for the tip!


My old local newspaper, Aftenposten, speculates about GM’s motivation to keep Saab out of China. The answer? The new Cadillac XTS, according to Aftenposten, borrows a lot of technology from Saab’s 9-5.

Edmunds.com mentions “Front wheel drive”. Another review at rsportscars.com enthusiastically describes an all-wheel drive system that sounds like it could be designed for northern Scandinavian roads. “An advanced, specially calibrated all-wheel-drive system ensures optimal traction in wet and slippery conditions, and helps deliver maximum traction while cornering.”

The engine is vastly different, but FWD is pretty damning evidence. Peter Dörrich mentioned Cadillac’s skepticism towards front wheel drive at his October fest presentation, and it was only thanks to XWD that they let Saab take the lead on that one. XWD was born from a manufacturer specializing in FWD. It would probably be difficult to offer a RWD drive-train on a platform that also should accommodate XWD for the more expensive models.

Realistically though, I fail to see why the XTS should feel threatened by the 9-5. Sure, the 9-5 is extremely nicer looking, and probably costs less, while performing quite well thanks to Saab’s insistence on using turbo technology, but I think they are still targeted towards different segments of the market. The 9-5 is for people with good taste in cars, and the XTS is for those who need something that looks big and intrusive (that scores high on Jeremy Clarkson’s patented cock-o-meter).

91 thoughts on “Fat Lady news snippets (What are GM and SweGov up to now?)”

  1. Well, the election is coming and the govs need to be able to say “we tried our best”…
    But if they had, VA might been the one putting in the money needed when they needed it, insted of this last 6-8 months of increasing pile of cash needed to get going again.

    • I agree with the gist of the comment; but there is no election in the near future, true there is always an election coming up; but it is 14 months since the last one, and the next one is in 2014.

      • To be able to tell those words, tjey have to say them before the s-t hits tje fan. And you are right, 2014 is a long time. People will forgett about this untill then. My misstake.

  2. This morning i came onto SU still squinty-eyed and not really awake. I was in that condition until I saw the title “fat lady news” and my heart sank…. now I’m fully awake.

  3. So you folks are like cafeteria Catholics so to speak and just cherry pick the capitalism that is working at the moment. The very conservative capitalism that was invented in Scandinavia and Germany? Saab was in decline on it’s lack of merit, the GM series sold but the decline continued with dealers closing. The Dutch failed to save it with a Russian and now the Swedish government is bad?

    Really, come and live over here where we support and prop up companies despite logic. Come where government involvement is rampant. My former Governor just lost millions of peoples dollars by bad investments in Italy and Greece. I would trade the system that you disdain in a heartbeat.

    • I’ve replied to you once before very recently.

      Saab was profitable as recently as 2007.

      By “The Dutch” you are probably referring to Spyker and “with a Russian” I can only assume you mean Antonov. But SweGov stopped Antonov from becoming a formal owner and they stopped him from making further investments.

      In short, SweGov speaks of free market forces on one side, yet takes an active role in deciding just who gets to own what. All the while they tell people that they are doing whatever they can to help…

        • Glad you asked Haakan.


          Basically the problem was that Saab was not a standalone company in the previous decade. E.g. the profits from sales of cars in North America went to GM NA, but the production costs was kept in Saab’s accounting books. That alone skews the picture quite a bit.

          The European Cadillac story is also a big contributor to Saab’s seemingly lack of financial success. Billions of SEK spent trying to start production of the Cadillac BLS in Sweden. Not a happy moment for Saab I am sure.

          Not that the past is all that relevant, but SweGov officials seem to spend half their time talking about windmills and the other half talking about Saab never turning a profit during its 60-year history. And that attitude is not very constructive given the circumstances.

          • Oh… I hoped you had some hard figures, not just speculations. I remember that there where some figures beeing mentioned internaly within Saab but there was no talk about Saab making an actual profit despite the GM accounting. From what I remember management was aware that Saab was operating at a loss in 2007.
            Are you sure that the Cadillac BLS costs where in the region of several 1,000,000,000 SEK? Some of that developent also found its way into the facelifted 9-3.

        • Well, since we need to go by the official figures some will tell that the 2009 years result isn’t valid.
          But if that isn’t valid why should the previous year be valid?

          I for one can not believe that GM was such a sucker that they only kept SAAB going despite all those “losses” Why? For what reason? They sure didn’t let them build new models to be able to make bigger sales. But GM kept saab and the engineering going?

          Du you really think that GM was that stupid?

          I do believe they did an official profit during 2007, but in all honesty, that is not interesting since all global company make losses where there is economical beneficial and the profit where the taxes is low.. What’s intresseting must be what GM got for the buck they poured into saab. A lean factory to produce opel astra (that didn’t happen), a global engineering department, a good platform for the volt and ampere electric vehicles, a nice XWD system and so on. That cost money, serious money to develop. And my take is that this is what GM was looking for rather than making saab a profitable brand.
          In 2005, finally, saab got to develop a spanking new model, namely the 9-5. But that was not to compete with the opel insignia (which by the way had the usual saab proportion)

          But GM did in fact invest in saab, and if the global crises hadn’t hit GM that hard, I do think they would have kept saab, and saab would be allowed to develop the brand. At least that is what I felt the last few years with GM.

          There is no use in bashing GM today, better to put the time and energy to find a way GM would allow.

          But that is, of coarse, just my 2 cents

          • I did not start following Saab news until 2008, thanks to Swade.

            My impression from checking the archives and the articles I’ve read is that the Aero-X marked somewhat of a turning point for GM’s interest in Saab. It was mentioned that Saab finally got the support they needed from their parent company to develop new products and get the wheels rolling again.

            Of course, the 9-5 successor that was cancelled happened around then as well?

            Difficult to tell for an outsider though. A commentator remarked once that nobody stayed in charge for long. The leadership of Saab was changing every two years, just long enough for the organisation to carry out the changes the previous management had wanted. The constant musical chair game meant no real long-term focus.

            I believe GM’s intentions were good back in the 90s. I have heard good things from that era, but again it was somewhat of a transition period for Saab.

            Saab evolved significantly the previous decade and is a completely different beast from what GM bought into 20+ years ago.

            There is no use in bashing GM today, better to put the time and energy to find a way GM would allow.

            I tend to agree with that, but I’d also like to gain a bit more understanding of what their problem is. It is difficult to find a way otherwise. Hopefully GM are willing to communicate their concerns to Youngman and Pang Da.

          • I also think the turning point was about the same time as the aero-x was developed.
            And it was about that time new models was developed by buick, opel and the like and they got better, with better safety. From where did that knowledge come from?

            GM saw a potential and tapped that. I would do the same. But, to late, they realised the value of the underdog they had lept in the back for the last 20 years.

          • Well, I guess from the fact that GM created an European engineering R&D center in Russelsheim (Opel HQ) and moved the entire engineering department of Saab there.


      • I suppose you, since you are there, can see what companies were given favor and that is not a matter of press here. Can you site some?

        Saab started falling off our charts here (wealthy zone too), seven or so years ago, with the closing of the dealers so it way prior to this fallout. Plenty of Saab here before that and then poof, they shut. BMW and Audi are on the rise and building new buildings in my town however otherwise I would blame the overall economy, but Saab just fell from favor.

        • I suppose you, since you are there, can see what companies were given favor and that is not a matter of press here. Can you site some?

          Given favor by whom? What are you talking about?

          You mean SweGov actually helping? Well, Maud’s son works for a windmill company, and she has happily talked favorable about windmills for most of her time as a minister… Never mind that it is quite possibly the least effective way of producing electricity (short of mounting a cow inside a treadmill) and the most effective way of killing birds and litter the landscape. YMMV.

          • Believe you don’t fancy the windmills are you…? 🙂

            I’m with you. Develop the nuclear power….nope. Not at this place. This isn’t the forum right?
            Lets take this discussion to “nyteknik dot se”.

          • rallyho, SweGov officials have commented on who they would prefer to own Saab. Jöran Hägglund at least twice, and Maud at least once.

            By their actions, it seems they have tried to make their preference become reality (e.g. when Maud flat out refused to comment Antonov’s bid for a part of Saab).

            Thus they are in effect dictating the ownership structure of a privately owned company.

            There is a stark contrast between Maud Olofsson’s handling of Saab and the way Angela Merkel dealt with Opel.

  4. The Caddy XTS is essentially very similar to the 9-5 under the skin. It’s also very similar to the Buick Regal, the LaCrosse, the Chevy Malibu as well others in GM’s lineup. The Epsilon II platform the XTS will be based on was designed to be flexible and is not that different from a chassis and architectural standpoint as the original Epsilon cars to include the current 9-3. While Saab was the first customer of Haldex’s Generation 4 all-wheel drive (a.k.a. XWD) it is now used in quite a few other vehicles to include Volkswagen models and Saab nor GM have no say on who purchases it from BorgWarner (who now own Haldex).

    I doubt GM is “threatened” by the 9-5’s existence and if anything, the licensing issues may not be what most people think. GM has already approved licensing and manufacturing deals for Epsilon I and Epsilon II vehicles with their Chinese partners such as SAIC. That includes the current outgoing 9-3 which really hasn’t changed from a chassis point of view since introduced in 2002.

    GM already has licensed the Chinese to build vehicles on the foundation underpinning the current 9-3 and the new 9-5 and already has given them access to their development work. Do we know for certain if those deals allow for another Chinese automaker to have access to the same platforms? Are there any clauses in the current licensing and partnership agreements that say GM will not allow others to build vehicles on the same platform in China?

    There’s way too much speculation and unfortunately that can propagate into being viewed as reality if repeated often enough. I’d like to see some answers on what exactly is licensed and the terms but I doubt many outside GM and it’s partners know that answer. So before everyone starts going off on what technology the Chinese want it might be wise to figure out what they already have access to and what binding agreements GM already has in place before jumping on the anti-GM bandwagon.

    • XWD was developed by Saab engineers in cooperation with Haldex. eLSD I believe is a pure Saab innovation that you will not find in non-GM adoptions of the 4th gen Haldex system (exclusively licensed to Saab the first year).

      It was Saab who pushed for XWD to become the drivetrain for the 9-4x and its sister Cadillac model.

      My point however was that Cadillac is hardly a brand that embraces front wheel drive, yet the basic model of the XTS is NOT rear wheel drive. That is quite revealing in itself. Especially when combined with a big engine which I’d consider to be the Achilles heal of a FWD car.

      I do not know why GM put the kybosh on the Youngman deal. I am just one of many who assumed they would, based on who GM picked as potential buyers two years ago.

      • Cadillac has had front wheel drive since the early to mid eighties. I had two Cadillacs before switching to Saab in 1999. Both were front wheel drive. And I had both for at least five years each. Cadillac has predominantly been front wheel drive until very recently. It’s first front wheel drive was a 1967 El Dorado.

  5. Okay, I can’t help but wonder why Ford was able to sell Volvo to the Chinese so quickly and with very little fanfare?? Both Ford and Volvo seem to be doing quite well as of today. It is a true shame that a similar outcome can’t be reach for GM and SAAB. Wishfull thinking I guess…I am still praying and my family is driving our brood of 3 SAABS regardless if she sings or not…

    • That is indeed the “64 thousand dollar question”, does anyone know of a good Volvo forum to get a stab at an answer?

      My guess it that Ford is riding pretty high after that shake up and feels they can be more stand alone in other markets. Perhaps they sold China ancient technology? My Volvo was a good car but not very inspiring. It is like a reliable mule in the back of the barn. The only selling feature was 7 passenger AWD 12 years ago. My relatives (industry folks), came back from family visits in Scandinavia all hyped over the Fords they hired. And, they were former GM guys.

    • Okay, I can’t help but wonder why Ford was able to sell Volvo to the Chinese so quickly and with very little fanfare??

      Some simply see it as: former Swedish brand, US owned, sold to China. But Ford negotiated directly with the Chinese, and for quite some time.

      Their situation was probably different as well, presence on different markets, not to mention company culture.

      • My recollection was that it wasn’t quick at all, actually taking quite some time, with many fits and starts. Much longer than many anticipated.

        • Yep, as I said quite some time; don’t remember exactly, but some articles from the time of the deal mentions nearly two years of talks.

          Anyhow, Saab and its owner is in a very delicate situation, with some tech already sold to China earlier, as well as the former owner’s huge interest in the Chinese market. But is it only IP and tech, or was GM concerned about the future for some brands in certain segments, potential competition from Saab in the long run?

      • True, but why is GM so concerned about a technology transfer to the Chinese and Ford wasn’t, (apparently)? It just baffles me that this seemingly similar transaction has become so impossible for GM while Ford gladly deposited $1.8 billion in the bank after seliling Volvo.

  6. Well, I had a break from this drama for a few days – but alas nothing new from the SweGov et al. Punch and Judy show. There seems to be hardly anyone who wants Saab to survive.

  7. GM’s responsibility is to their shareholders and employees. Last year, they gave new ownership a chance (probably against GM’s better judgement). I doubt they will make the same “mistake” (in their mind) again.

    • Yes – in 2009-2010 they (GM) changed their minds… – not at least because off the massive pressure from Saab-fans all over the world (.. Thanks, Swade..) . I hope that we this time will not let GM dot their crimes without protesting.

  8. Torque-vectoring AWD is not a pure Saab innovation, as it was being simultaneously developed by several component makers when Saab unveiled the XWD. Haldex was merely first to the market with it.

    Why is the XTS front-wheel drive? Because it shares the same global chassis that was primarily FWD with the option for AWD. There was no plundering of Saab technology for this, as the concept has been around for longer than most of us have been alive.

    You folks complaining about GM and talking about protesting are “barking up the wrong tree” with those complaints. Your anger should be directed at the Swedish government — which had multiple chances to save Saab and refused each time.

    Did GM cave into “massive pressure” from all over the world? Probably not. GM saw it was in its best interest to try to salvage something out of the write-off in earnings that it would have taken by shuttering Saab. Finding a willing buyer (cynics would say a “sucker”) to buy Saab was a win-win for GM. If Saab survived, it would still be a vendor of GM, which as we now know, owns nearly all the technology underpinning Saab. If it failed, then it likely would get something from the initial sale, then still be able to sell off the tech and get more than if it just shut the doors.

    A final point: much of the tech supposedly derived from Saab was actually produced by joint ventures with Opel / GM-Eu. Folks in THN wil probably claim they produced the lion’s share, while folks in Russelsheim would likely say they contributed the most.

    • mike, what you say sounds like the true insider word. The only thing I would dispute would be the governments role and the “social mission”. If the company were Swedish owned (it seems to be Dutch/Russian), I could see the social mission being more active but when the profits go elsewhere I don’t feel as strongly. My naive (perhaps), view is that if there is too much drain (via profits), it becomes more than just worker jobs, it is about maintaining money in circulation in that immediate economy?

      • Haldex worked with with Saab and GM-Eu, and Saab got first crack at Haldex’s version of torque vectoring one model year before Opel…and the Buick Regal.

        But Nissan, Mitsubishi, and Honda all developed similar systems around the same time, or before.

        • A little bit of XWD history to add to this part of the discussion……

          The guy responsible for the development and implementation of XWD into Saab (and de-facto into GM’s FWD platforms, which Saab had responsibility for) was a Saab guy named Peter Johansson.

          Peter was a part-time rally driver growing up and he and his father developed AWD systems at home during the 80s to use in their rallying adventures. The ‘Sigge Johansson differential’ was tried out in the Saab 9000 but not brought to serial production. They later sold a system they had developed to Haldex, around 1987.

          Peter’s now the guy in charge at eAAM, developing the eXWD system. He toured around the world with the Turbo X back in 2008 (I’ve got a video of him on Youtube taking the Turbo X around Holden’s dirt track proving grounds at Lang Lang, here in Australia). His father and grandfather both had long careers at Saab, with Grandad popping out panels for the original Saab 92 back when the company started.

          All of the above was written about back in the TS days and is also the subject of a 2008 press release about Johansson, back when XWD was introduced. I know as well as you do that press releases are always written in the best possible light, but believe me, Peter’s the real deal and a great bloke.

    • Fast, ugly and get around The Ring faster than any Saab?

      Sounds like my kind of girl.

      There is more to performance than a pretty face. That ugly crest would take 5 minutes to strip off.

      • Doesn’t make the thing any less ugly. And fast, sure, in a straight line. But there is more to a car than straightline performance. Does it stay on the road going through a really fast Z-curve? Most Caddies don’t.


        • The Caddy is cutting laps around Nurbruing at some wicked blistering times. The Ring ain’t a straight line. Read for content.

          It will smoke any Sabb out there stock. Do not bring Per’s 800 horse $2 million Pikes Peak machine into this.

          The Caddy is ugly, and it would be like being whooped by your sister. Hurts don’t it? 🙂

          • Not the least.
            But it did take quite some time, that old man’s car – ugly then, ugly now – isn’t known for being car that performs well when it’s a little more demanding track, in fact it’s not known for performance at all. But hey after, what, 100+ years, maybe they can come closer to the European competition. Let me guess, what did the Yankees do this time? The solution? A big big engine in the xts? American cars have been behind the other competitors the last 50 years or so, so it will be interesting to see what they can achieve now when the gas price is going up a little, and they are under more pressure.
            And Saab can’t do whatever they like with the engines, otherwise I think you would have seen quite some fight.

          • That doesn’t mean it won’t cruise really nicely on US interstates where we commonly drive for ten hour stretches or more. And I had a 9-5 Aero that absolutely wrecked my back on the tar strips on a 16 hour trek from Albuquerque to Memphis. Handling twisty roads is grossly overrated in the states IMHO, kinda like active safety.

            This car will be serious competition for the 9-5 in the US and especially because Cadillac’s dealer network is about 1000 times as good as Saab’s here, which is really getting almost nil.

  9. I have to agree with the comment on TG that the Chinese and Saab must have know that GM wasnt going to agree to any of this. GM played a blinder and finally killed off Saab with very little blood on their hands.

    Its a very sad time indeed. 🙁

    • Good comment; GM did know this from the beginning and the Swedish Government just helped by keeping quite and not standing on the barricades to stop this from happening.

  10. I personally dislike GM and wish that they’d have no-part in Saab and let Saab live on to be saved one way or another. I think that GM did nothing more than ruin Saab’s good name and reputation, then wash there hands of the brand when it wasn’t profitable any longer. It’s like GM just want’s to slowly torture a brand that’s fighting to stay alive. I think the Chinese did good with Volvo and if given the oppertunity they can do the same for Saab and also continue to build them in Sweden.

    • Thank you. I couldn’t agree with you more! While not a SAAB, the new Volvo S60 is a very appealing entry in the automotive marketplace. I find it to be a very compelling vehicle and am pleased to see Volvo doing so well in the US. Now if only we could be so lucky…

    • The bigger question is whether Saab would have lived at all if not bought by GM. Saab’s “good name and reputation” never translated into sales, and Saab was never willing or able to update body styles and models fast enough to remain competitive. Using a two-stroke engine while the rest of the planet used 4-strokes? Using a weak longitudinal engine/transverse transmission setup that dated from the ’60s well into the early ’90s? Those were all pre-GM blunders.

      GM’s biggest failing was in allowing Saab to continue to kill itself with bad decisions.

      More than anything, GM is guilty of neglect.

      • Well, during the early convertible years I think they sold more than some other brands’ convertibles combined such as BMW and Audi, the Saab convertible was really hot then, even if it had a longitudinal engine…

        They have had problems sometimes, building on one success to another.

        (The two-stroke engines was of course a result of the post war situation 1947-1950, later on they had quite some success with them, to say the least, one also has to remember that when it started it wasn’t meant to go on for years.)
        I’m not going to argue, but GM could have done a lot better; they understood neither the brand nor the segment, it seems, even though they had quite some time in the 90s.

  11. This is a chance/need for Saab to dump GM with the new chinese investors, and start from Phoenix(which can be produced without GM IP). Have the JC 900 (9-3) start Saab over, and fill a niche similar to how Mini only started with one very successful model design and then built other models on it. It more adequately represents a rebirth of a design language and Saab creates an identity it can sell sans-GM. With the money saved by only producing one model, have full-blown advertising of this single new GM-free car with the best of everything (BMW engine, Saab safety, android infotainment, hybrid XWD, JC design, factory hirsch etc)

    Its Saab’s best bet into making a strong market presence, otherwise a lot about the brand is ambiguous to buyers and the sales will reflect a lost sense of direction.

  12. OK guys. Could someone enlighten me about Opel vs. Saab. We almost never had Opels in the US, except rarely we got some rebadged ones as Cadillacs or Saturns. So in Europe, I gather Opel’s reputation is not that good, which is surprising since it is German. So if Saab still has a good reputation in Europe and Opel doesn’t, why didn’t GM push the Saab brand in Europe?

    When GM sold Saab several years ago and owner financed the deal, that essentially gave GM the right to take Saab back if the venture failed. I have always wondered whether that wasn’t GM’s plan all along. If GM took Saab back, could it merge Saab and Opel? GM will have to take Saab back in a bankruptcy, so why not make good use of a good brand name and use it to improve GM’s image in Europe?

    • Re; owner financed the deal

      I don’t see/have not seen GM act as to take Saab back…

      Re: could it merge Saab and Opel

      Are you suggesting Opel cars, are rebadged as ‘Saab’?.

      • Not suggesting anything.

        I just wonder if GM’s best move is to take Saab back. Work a deal with Chinese partners to manufacture and sell in China. That seems more sensible than letting PangDa and Youngman have it.

        But then GM would still have its European problems. What to do with Opel and Saab.

    • If GM was to take Saab back, it would just be a continuation of brand dilution,stagnation and technology stripping that Saab suffered the past decade. In other words, a ‘lingering death’. I would not wish that on Saab. A clean death would be much preferable. Not that I think Saab will die. I still think it will survive in one form or another and I’m not about to give up on it yet.

      • Not so sure about that. GM is very different now than it was two or three years ago. GM had nine different car companies in the US plus Opel and Vauxhall in Europe. The nine US companies are down to four. GM could concentrate on Saab much more this time around if it took Saab back and made it its premium European brand.

        • Forgot Holden in Australia and who knows what in China. What GM really needs to do is go with a more global product with fewer divisions. They really could easily displace Buick with Saab in the US, since right now they really don’t have a performance sedan brand.

          • In Russia GM are doing very, very well with Deawoo-Chevrolet, another string to their ever growing bow in the BRIC economies. They did come unstuck with an alliance with Lada for the Chevrolet Niva. As my Russian father-in-law puts it – “It’s not a Niva and it’s not a Chevy. What the hell is it?! 😀

  13. News on the battery front. A new startup company in the US is making batteries out of salt, water, carbon and manganese. Extremely cheap materials and extremely long life batteries because the causticity is so low. What turned me on to this company was an article that claimed the battery would not be good for cars because it may turn out that the battery lasts too long. The battery could turn out to be so revolutionary that it could last a million miles.

    See aquionenergy.com

    Some real heavy hitters on the board of directors and some pretty good start up money from the US government.

    I would like to take some of these batteries and put them in my Saab that has no engine. Now that would be a project.

  14. Can I ask a stupid question… Why are we hearing no outrage from Trollhattan on this? Why no thousands of employees protesting outside Trollhattan government offices? Why no personal tales of woe of Saab employees. Why does it feel to me like Saab, Trollhattan, and the Swedish citizenry in the area that would be affected are going to slaughter with a whimper?

    • .
      Actually it’s not a stupid question atall…..

      Excluding a few Saab employees that have popped up on here, there has been little to no comments from the 1000’s employee at Trollhattan.

      SU + numerous other Saab sites have all talked about action ‘worldwide’, but not alot from THN.

      I could not go to Oktoberfest [Octoberfest] in THN, but, again, not many comments about staff & hardly any from the 1000’s of employees.

      We [as Saab owners] have & are doing our bit, but the staff stay silent, why is this……..??????

      Perhaps, as a start, Saabworker, etc, could answer.

      • Probably because everyone is so completely powerless to do anything about it and time is so short. This appears to be all about GM’s relationship with the Chinese market, so the reality seems to be that Saab’s fate/future will now be decided between Detroit and, most likely, the Chinese NDRC. Youngman have presented their plans for Saab and GM need time to consider if there is any way that a deal could be structured around those plans to provide a net benefit at reasonable risk to them. If they think that the best solution might involve some other Chinese manufacturer (SAIC?), then presumably they will first talk directly with the NDRC. SweGov probably cannot influence this at all, since GM IP is essential to the prospects for recovery and both the present management and the Administrator are completely powerless except in their ability to put forward suggestions. The only party that could put any pressure on GM at all would be the NDRC.

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.