Muller:”I warned of this”

Some reactions from Mr Muller at

Victor Muller explains to TTELA that he is not surprised by the news from GM.
– I warned about this all the time, says Saab’s CEO.
The announcement opens to the original proposal by Youngman and Pang Da as a partner may be the case again.

In the negotiations that led to the proposal that Youngman and Pang Da would take over Saab made Victor Muller clear that the proposal would meet with opposition from GM, and possibly in others. When TTELA such as talking to Saab CEO October 20, when negotiations took place, and it was clear that Guy Lofalk ran a line from the Youngman and Pang Da would take over Saab, he said:

– They have not thought through the whole thing. If the Chinese would take such a large stake in Saab would all regulations of GM, BMW, the EIB and the National Debt Office strike. It simply would not go through, it would simply end for Saab.

When TTELA now sends a message to Victor Muller, he answers: “It required no great knowledge to predict this. I warned the Chinese all along that they wanted something that would not go home at GM. ”

And he adds:

“Now we go back to the drawing board.”

It is said to mean that the original plan dusted off where Chinese companies are partners in the Swedish Automobile while Victor Muller himself is left as a partner. An open question is whether this approach would be approved by GM.

97 thoughts on “Muller:”I warned of this””

  1. “It’s fantastic because the future of the company is now secured”

    Victor Muller october 28.

    And now he’s saying that he warned about this the whole time…

      • The CEO is the head salesman, what do you expect him to say? “We have a deal but I fully expect GM will not agree?” lol….you lead with the end state in mind and deal with stuff as it comes. There is proof VM anticipated this, this is whythe original deal was structured the was it was.

      • folks – do you not get it? when VM says the future is secured, he’s saying “all the best” because that’s all he can. his fiduciary duty as CEO and Officer at that time doesn’t allow him to comment in any other way. At the same time, he and others ALSO messaged that things are not yet done and that GM will be the big hurdle ahead.

        back off the VM bashing – he’s the ONLY person who has given up personal wealth and health and peace of mind to save saab. everyone else is just the damn peanut gallery.

    • VM didn’t negotiate properly. But if he’s not surprised about GMs reply to the plan what we his strategy?
      That’s always management blabla: Fly by with helicopter, making a lot of noise and disappear I the dust they’re leaving.
      So this all could only be a part to keep himself in charge. Nothing about securing Saab.

      • what a bunch of ignorant thankless “fans” – wonder why he should bother – i doubt any one of you VM bashers would give up 70mil of your own hard earned cash to save a brand and build a future that you could do something great (and profitable) with. i think every single one of the VM bashers would have run away by now

        • Mmmm…. VM did not give out 70m€ of his own cash to save Saab. He invested to a high risk business opportunity, and currently it seems that it was a bad decision.

          • Moose…stop commenting about this today. I assure you that in retrospect in a few weeks time when all the info is out, his moves will make much more sense to you, and all this bashing will look in extremely poor taste. No more, please.

          • So now Muller is saying I knew it was a doubtful deal all long? That’s nice. Funny how it didn’t stop him telling the creditors that it was basically a done deal last week. If I was one of those copmanies who is owed money by Saab, my patience would now be completely worn out by Mullers constant promises of “The moneys on its way, honest it is,”. and I would be wanting to have a very serious conversation with him.
            And if you don’t mind Jeff I’m going to do a little guess work here about some of your recent posts. Would I be right in assuming that your information is that Muller knew that GM would never approve Youngman and that the deal was actually a way to move them out of the picture? That way Muller could get rid of Youngman and buy yet more time for Saab to find another investor who would be suitable to GM and still fulfill PangDas order whilst under Re-Organisation? Because if that is the case I do hope you aren’t pinning your hopes on North Street Capital. I wouldn’t trust them to organise a works Christmas party, let alone save a motoring brand known round the world.
            But hey ho. Maybe the Endeavour Advisory Group have finally found that 300 million euros they said they would find to invest by the end of August?
            We can but hope eh?

          • Let’s see what the comments will be from the creditors. That would help you a little wouldn’t it?
            The reality probably is that this doesn’t change much in way of financing compared to the 100% deal.
            The Chinese just gets a little less influence, and Youngman will have to take a very serious look at their partner BAIC to survive the rationalisations in Chinese Autoindustry
            Pang Da don’t really give a sh*t

          • gawdlpus November 7, 2011 at 23:08,
            You seem to be drawn to anything that can be interpreted as bad news for Saab, then venting your spleen about VM.

            So now Muller is saying I knew it was a doubtful deal all long? That’s nice. Funny how it didn’t stop him telling the creditors that it was basically a done deal last week.

            That’s your words, not what happened. First, VM didn’t do much talking at the creditors’ meeting. Secondly, it’s a bloody MOU, it can’t be presented as done deal, and wasn’t. Everyone understood that. He was the first to point out that there were several stakeholders that had to give approval, and that GM probably was the biggest “hurdle”. Thirdly, did Swan go out with a press release about Endeavour Advisory Group? Or did they just respond to some questions from journalists? You and some other make a habit of mentioning a lot as if it had been “promised”, when in fact there have been very few promises, if any. Most of it just rumours in the media.

          • Tripod,
            As far as I’m aware SWAN issued a press release on the 20/08 with regard to the Endeavour Group. It even confirmed that they had been hired by the company and that those funds would be available in the time scale mentioned.
            TBH I’m only using them as an example of the various attempts at delaying bankruptcy petitions that have been put forward since all of this started. Yes. some of them are from press ‘reports’ but where do we think the press got their information from? And it is remarkable that most of them have been reported at the end of the month just as the unions might have been thinking about bankruptcy petitions. Not only do you have the EAG report but you have the rumour of “a major European bank” that appeared in at the end of August, the money arriving from PangDa/Youngman PhoeniX purchase that was due to arrive at the end of Spetember, the NSC funding that was due to arrive at the end of October & finally the latest PangDa/Youngman deal.
            As for the creditors meeting again it doesn’t matter what Muller personally did or didn’t say. SWAN asked the creditors for the Re-Organisation to be extended on the basis of a MoU that Muller is now admitting was flawed even as it was put before them.
            As I said, if I was owed thousands by SWAN, I would be sick to the back teeth with all these reports, leaks and rumours and I would want my money. Now.

          • gawdlpus,
            on the 2th of August SWAN made no press release. AFAIk, it was the guy from Endeavour that talked to the press or put an open letter in

          • RedJ.
            Do you really think that SWAN would let any company unrelated to them release a statement with regard to their finances without senior managements approval? And I first read about EAG on this very site. Perhaps someone who helps run it could do some archive work and prove me wrong?

          • @gawdlpus. At some point you have to wonder what the judge is going to think. I don’t know how this works in Sweden, but US bankruptcy judges are not fans of plans being presented that the presenters know will fail. Here, in the US, you would run the risk of being sanctioned by the court.

          • gawdlpus,
            I don’t know who allows whom what, I was only saying that neither SWAN nor Saab Automobile made such press release. And yes you might be right, that SU helped spreading the Endeavour rumours.

          • gawdlpus November 7, 2011 at 23:54,

            As far as I’m aware SWAN issued a press release on the 20/08 with regard to the Endeavour Group.

            And as far as I know Swan did not issue a press release regarding the EAG.
            Take a look here:

            Or at

            Ms Gustavs, at Saab, replied to some questions from the media around the 19th of August, after some paper in who knows where (Hawaii?) had mentioned something about EAG and Saab. That’s all as far as I know.

            Anyhow, aren’t they allowed to talk with anyone they like without that being seen as a “promise”? Sometimes you have to respond to media rumours, and that’s what they did.

        • @skn
          I never was a friend of VM. I’m curious about fast and fluent speaking people in expensive trousers and talking about the Saab DNA and other things I think he knows nothing about.
          For sure he gave Saab an expanded lifetime and saved Saab from wind down. He collected a lot of money and burns it immediately. Some of his deals are perfect clever.
          But Saab had no strategy in ramping up volume and VM thought in big plans and got expensive people like the Chief designer on board. Trying to get sports cars design to passenger cars ruled out to be a big undertaking. VM didn’t realized that Saab works best in the past with their own staff by improvising and doing magical 😉

          That’s my thought on the SWAN/ VM era.

          And trust me I grew up with Saab, driving a Saab and being proud to do so. But I feel bad see things running like now. There was no real negotiating and all parties are surprised now. Don’t blame Murphy and his family on this.

          • Yes but Lofalk filed a motion to stop reorganization. That put the bankruptcy case on the road to liquidation and then we had this filing regarding this memorandum of understanding setting aside the motion to stop reorganization. To me, this is borderline fraud on the court and creditors. As I mentioned above, most bankruptcy judges in the US would be pissed if someone submitted a document that presented a plan that had no chance of approval by the major parties in order to stop the liquidation process.

          • davidgmills November 8, 2011 at 00:38,
            Yes you mentioned it twice, now.
            I think some of you guys have to decide on which foot to stand on; on the one hand you say the administrator is almighty and can do whatever he/she wants; on the other hand you blame the companies (the three Saab companies?) for presenting documents that “had no chance of approval by the major parties”. Wouldn’t that document, the preliminary reconstruction plan, be a work of the administrator?

            I think that would be very hard to prove; since no one would know what kind of discussions were going on between the different parties and GM, they said it might be difficult to get approval from GM with this structure, but perhaps not impossible. And it seemed to be enough for the administrator to write his plan and present it to the court.

      • Victor never wanted the chinese to take 100% in the first place! He wanted them to take 53.9% or whatever, and my guess is that number wasn´t taken right out of the air.
        On the positive side, since he knew this from the beginning, he probably have been preparing for this day since then.

      • .

        You seem to have forgotten that Guy Lofalk is the administrator here & what HE SAYS GOES….VM [in this case] would not have had much choice….

        • Lofalk set aside his motion to stop reorganization based on someone’s representation that there was a plan that would work. Lofalk is not the guilty party, here. You don’t submit plans in bankruptcy court that you know have no chance of success and whose only purpose is to delay the litigation process. If you did that in the US, you would be asking to be sanctioned.

    • As I remember it (and quoted in the article and below), the first thing he warned about that and turned down the first offer from YPD as “unacceptable” and probably wouldn’t be approved, but he also said something like “we are five (?) people making the decision”, and then no matter how the descussions went during the next couple of days of negotiations, once they finally agreed on something, wouldn’t it be rather strange behaviour for a CEO not to stand behind the decision when it is presented to the media? I see no reasons to fight battles against your collegues in the media,

      Anyway, for Saab I suppose it wasn’t so bad to try this solution also. It made Lofalk agree on continue the reconstruction, and if VM & YPD together can convinve GM to approve then perfect (for Saab rather than for VM), and if not, then YPD have strong pressure to go back to and settle on the previous plan and agreements before November 15th or loose the rights on to be the only companies with negotiation rights on this deal. (As far as I understand it without knowing anything I haven’t read here at SU. 😉 )

  2. Love you, Victor Müller <3

    Ask the Chinese businessmen to close down all the GM´s industries in Asia if they do not accept the deal 😉

    Meanwhile we pray = ) The big fat lady has a very soar throat…

  3. So the situation is as follows:

    – If PangDa/Youngman want to buy Saab 100%, GM does not license their technologies
    – If PangDa/Youngman want to buy part of Saab/SWAN (as per according to original agreement), the NDRC is unlikely to approve the deal (*)

    Pretty kinky situation if you ask me…

    (*) Victor Muller commented on an interview when the PangDa/Youngman deal was announced that: “Before, the NDRC (the Chinese government) was the biggest hurdle, but now that 100% of the shares will be owned by Pangda and Youngman I’m not expecting any difficulties there.

  4. If Youngman and Pang da have the long term view they say they do, they should stick to the original plan and then buy 100% in lets say 10 years time when GM IP has been phased out.

    • That’s what one would have seen as a feasible and natural way of doing business. Perhaps they can’t wait, not being allowed to play with the other on the Chinese market, if they can’t show that they have some great tech, large volumes etc.

  5. Why not make the same arrangement as GM. GM bought a stake of Saab and later they got a part of Saab until the year 2000, when they finally owned 100%?

    Give PDYM 50% und a binding option to buy 5% more every year.

    • thats basically what I was saying as well in another post. It’s called a Put Option. Saab needs to exercise this option immediately. It’s the only plausible way out of this mess that I can see if they want to go the China route. Either that or get NSC to replace Youngman after the 15th of November and keep Pangda as the other partner.


  6. Would GM actually need to approve a partnership in Swedish Automobile? I mean Swan has nothing to do with GM. I can understand that GM must approve a full sale, but if PD-YM are to invest in Swan then it really should be none of GM’s business.

  7. The funny thing is that, with 100% take over, GM would veto it. On the other side, without 100% take over, NDRC would veto it. What a sad for SAAB….

        • quickbird, I think the main difference is that on the G-V case Geely spoke directly with Ford, and Geely committed to everything Ford asked them to do. In this case SWAN would sell Saab to YM-PD, and because of that the conditions for the 9-4x contract or some IP licences are no more valid.

          So after taking over Saab, YM-PD would have to discuss with GM new terms and conditions to be able to use that IP and to get more 9-4x build by GM.

          Although it looks quite similar, now the Saab and the Volvo cases are quite different.

        • On a comment spree? 😀
          davidgmills November 8, 2011 at 01:17
          davidgmills November 8, 2011 at 01:15
          davidgmills November 8, 2011 at 01:13
          davidgmills November 8, 2011 at 01:08
          davidgmills November 8, 2011 at 01:02
          davidgmills November 8, 2011 at 00:57
          davidgmills November 8, 2011 at 00:54
          davidgmills November 8, 2011 at 00:50
          davidgmills November 8, 2011 at 00:40
          davidgmills November 8, 2011 at 00:38
          davidgmills November 8, 2011 at 00:28

    • there where never comments from the NDRC that a 100% takeover is necessary. It´s something new for me –
      there were only some comments that with an 100% takeover the ndrc should´t be a real hurdle.

    • Now, it seems like the idea of 100% vwas basically from NDRC. NDRC also approves SAIC actions. Far as I can see, the main task will be for NDRC to resolve the problems between SAIC and YMPD regarding GM. I never though this could pass without NDRCs involvment.

      But of course this is not the end.

  8. Its not a given that NDRC would veto it. It all depends on PD and YM’s strength and their willingness to use all the resources at their disposal to seek, defend, and obtain approvals. So far VM and team have been doing the heavy lifting. Time for PD and YM to “SAAB UP” – “S*&t or get off the pot”

  9. Wasn´t it an idea of lofalk and swegov to sell the whole company to china without talking to gm. SWAN always wanted to be part of the game – and after the talks with GM in summer VM knows the terms how to solve the problem. the 100% ownership was only an idea after the phenomenal idiotic geely idea.

  10. If GM has preferred shares of SWAN, don’t they have an obligation to work for the best interests of other shareholders of SWAN? Can they sabotage a company they have shares in without facing repercussions from the other shareholders? I know it’s probably a dumb question because I know nothing about corporate ownership matters. But I had to ask.

    • You are right but GM will state that they give preference to their own shareholders above the shareholders of SWAN.
      But in principle you are absolutely right; that shows the GM ethics.

      • Think of GM as a bank, not an equity partner. These shares were just a loan, a way of seller financing the deal. No bank is going to give up a $326 million dollar loan easily. They have a legitimate right to get paid back just like the EIB would.

    • GM should have no say; shareholders of preferred stock generally are first in line as creditors come bankruptcy, but rarely (if ever) have voting rights that come with common stock. As such, GM should have no say in whether or not the deal goes through.

      Of course, different corporate bylaws and different jurisdictions may allow or apply different rules concerning preferred vs. common shares.

      • This issue is far more complicated than whether GM’s shares are preferred or common. The press releases and articles mention the issues of intellectual property and technology licenses…all created, owned and controlled by GM.

        Commenting that “GM should have no say” attempts to wipe out of existence the technology and funds that GM has invested in Saab, while holding on to everything that the technology and funds made possible. We can either have our cake, or eat it. Not both at the same time.

    • No — GM is under no

      obligation to work for the best interests of other shareholders of SWAN

      . GM is under an obligation to work for its own best interests…the same as every other shareholder. Why would GM agree to 100% Chinese control of Saab (including tons of GM intellectual property, licenses, technology, etc.)?? That would amount to “sabotaging” themselves.

      And calling what GM is doing “sabotage” of a company is entirely inaccurate and extremely short-sighted. Without GM ($$, IP, powertrains, etc.) there would be no Saab to “sabotage” (saabotage?).

  11. Again, exactly why does Saab need GM at this point?

    In Scenario A, my guess is that:
    – Saab may lose money on the 9-5 right now…
    – The current 9-3 probably just does better than breaking even,,,
    – 9-4X probably is more important to dealers than Saab itself, given Saab is likely paying near full freight for it.

    So in this scenario, why not just “mothball” Saab for about 14 months until the NG 9-3 comes out? In a way, in my mind, things still aren’t that different from Dec 2009, meaning Saab was/is going to tread water as a brand until the NG 9-3 is ready and whoever owns it was going to have to absorb losses. At least this way, you don’t (yet) have to pay to run the factory and pay the workers. Start developing SUV’s and a new 9-5 off the Phoenix platform now.

    Then again, in Scenario B, if the NG 9-3 is full of GM tech, then forget the above scenario and then indeed Saab would be in huge trouble…

    • liari,
      if somebody would “mothball” Saab, some dealers worldwide wouldn’t be very amused about it.
      How do you explain it?

      Thank you for your patience, but we are going to bed now!

    • @liari – there wasn´t a 100% chinese scenario for saab – “mothballing saab for 14 months is the dead of the trollhättan plant,and the saab that we know and love.

      and get rid of all blue collar trolls is the most unsaabish way that is possible and wasn´t made by VM in all those hard days. that´s not that saab i love – and i think i could speak for many others – not that way !!!

      • @Red J
        They’d presumably survive the way they have until now, with used vehicles, CPO Saabs, and service, and maybe some financial stipend from the YMPD. Some at dealers I’ve talked to have found it hard to move the 9-5 and have no great love for it. Regarding the 9-4X they can’t miss what they’ve never had, and what they really are all waiting for is the new 9-3. I’ve been told by some that used Saab sales remain quite strong and robust, actually… I think it would generate confidence for the brand for YMPD to say, “We’re going to put everything we can into Saab. Stay tuned for a full, 100% reboot in December of 2012 GM model free!”

        Companies mothball plants all the time and bring them back online later. This is happening all over Asia due to natural disasters and, frankly, Saab’s plant has already been mothballed going on what, 9 months now? It would in no way mean the end of the Trollhattan plant, just that it would be waiting for its model to build. I’d feel bad about the workers in the coming year, but…

        What is the alternative. What if a GM Saab is either my scenario above, or NO Saab, FOREVER?

        • @liari -if you mothball your plant for the next 14 months waiting for only one wonder model of a car that could build in china for less money with chinese owners …………hmmmmm what would be the consequence. I am not a dreamer. and it´s the economy….
          and you cannot develop a new 9-5 and 9-4 in that time

        • iilari, if you want a GM free 9-3, you’ll be waiting closer to 4-6 years than 1-2. Just for the record. And I’m not too sure how much you’d actually want to buy it…

          • Well, the GM free 9-3 is scenario B I had above and, indeed, if the NG 9-3 is that dependent on GM, than Saab is indeed in trouble…

          • Well of course Saab will be dependent on GM or some other big auto industry in the future. Niche brands always are dependent either on a big company or on its suppliers who are not about to piss off the big company.

          • I would like a clear statement (from someone… WHO KNOWS) about Saab’s IP. TimR suggested earlier today: “…as we’ve reported before, about 50 % of the next gen 9-3 is actually GM technology and GM parts…”. Frankly, this was news to me. More importantly (to me…as I prepare my diary entry for some future historian what has been/is the day to day operational significance of that IP ownership?

            1. Did it prevent the production of a Halo Car? (hitherto?)
            2. Follow on: Was Saab prevented from exceeding the specification of any existing deployment of a given GM engine? To continue( conversing with myself…) ….I suppose ‘not’ because how could a 330 HP 9-5 be released in that case — granted under ‘Hirsch/Saab’ label (significantly exceeding the output of same LaCrosse…or SRX…but not sufficient to overwhelm the German competition—never mind Cadillac [CTS-V….with XWD 350hp XLS in wings]) . Or is Saab restricted by a given percentage: ‘Though shalt not exceed by 10% the given output of a GM engine…’ [?]
            3. If the restrictions are so focused on China– it strikes me that there’s another 5.7 Billion people in the world to sell to…

            I know in ‘My World’ ‘The Chinese’ are not the only capitalized nation on the face of the Earth…

    • If you think the dealer network is crashing and burning now, just mothball production for 14 months. And then what would you do about parts? Are all the new 9-5s not going to have any parts supply at all?

  12. Great Victor …. he let them bang their noses against the wall …. now let us start negotiating again on more reasonable terms … does it hurt Guy?

  13. Eh guys, haven’t you noticed that GM’s announcement came AFTER court’s decision?
    Do you think that GM knew nothing about the deal with the Chinese? I doubt it.

    My guess is that they KNEW everything about the deal firsthand. But they let first Saab gets the OK from the court (in order to survive) and then enter into the game starting negotiations. GM plays hard in order to secure SAAB/GM technology. That’s not bad. That’s good. And I think SWAN and GM are in line on this and not in opposite fields.

    GM just wanted the time to make the proper negotiations. So they had to leave first the court to decide and then have plenty of time to negotiate with the Chinese.

    I see light at the end of the tunnel! And something good will come at the end.

      • Could not agree more with all the points you have been making this evening about possible problems with the court, David. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if Muller isn’t taken to task over this. I’ll repeat what I said earlier; that it would appear that SWAN got the Re-Organisation extended based on a business plan their CEO has just admitted they knew wouldn’t work.

        • To the best of my knowledge, the deal that Saab entered reorganization with was okay with GM. However, the 100% deal requested by the Chinese (and sadly it appears orchestrated primarily by Lofalk) changed the ground rules and really pissed off GM. So much so that I don’t see them agreeing to the previous split again, as it revealed Youngman’s true motives. This isn’t a theory, it’s based on real info from the ground.

          If anyone is guilty of fouling up the deal, it’s Lofalk and the unnamed SweGov members who pushed for the 100% deal to expedite the process and oust Muller. They underestimated GM’s role, and are paying the price now. What you see today is the inevitable result of that action. Muller called it, he tried to avoid it, but i the end he had to accept it as Lofalk cornered him and left him no choice but to negotiate a 100% offer. If you couldn’t tell by the sarcasm in his voice, the exasperated look on his face, or the words he chose on Monday after the creditor’s meeting that he didn’t want this deal but was forced into it to keep the company safe.

          As far as “putting creditors off,” once you understand what he’s actually trying to pull off (it’s not hard to figure out), you’ll understand that Muller’s preferred route sees the creditors paid off the fastest. If they were to go to bankruptcy proceedings, they’d receive a fraction of what’s owed to them, plus no possible future earnings from Saab. If anyone is looking out for the creditors, I assure you it’s Muller.

  14. The solution to this is simple. Swan sells the shares up to fn percent to youngman pang da. The rest is locked for 7 years with a fixed priced for them to buy. In other words you delay the full takeover to after that GM is no partner in the deal.

    gm has better insight and youngman pangda still gets controll of the company in the long run.

    • I missed the percentage 50,1 for VM and 49,9 for Youngman Pang Da. With this solution VM is still majority stakeholde and the Chinese companies will have a fixed route to becom the sole owner of SAAB. This agreement will only last as long as GM has licienses rights.

  15. This is confusing. Saab have vendor contracts with GM, as separate companies. I also have contracts with companies in my life. Just because a party changes ownership, does not absolve everyone from their contracts with the party. If I owe my bank $1,000,000, and they change ownership, I still owe that bank $1,000,000. I am not sure why GM expects Saab to do business but not in the world’s largest car market, China. Obviously they are both on Earth, so some “competition” is inevitable, however abstract.

    GM should throw Saab a bone here.

      • But do most people who pass on a Saab buy a Buick, or move on to a BMW, Volvo or Audi? Most of the Import driving people here in the US tend to stay with buying imports.

        • But do most people who pass on a Saab buy a Buick, or move on to a BMW, Volvo or Audi? Most of the Import driving people here in the US tend to stay with buying imports.

          Agreed. The only GM car that holds my interest is the Corvette, but even then after having suffered horrific customer service with a ZR-1 (not to mention frustratingly limited parts availability), I will never buy a GM until they learn proper customer service and provide replacement parts that at least match the quality of the original parts. Do you have any idea how frustrating it is to have to buy 2-3 times more secondary intake actuators or switches just to get enough working parts to maintain your car? (if I ever buy another really high end sportscar again and GM hasn’t learned what it takes to retain customers, I’ll look to Audi. Porsche, or even the Italian carmakers, even despite the orgasmic rush the ZR1 delivers) The problem is, GM has never learned that if you want to retain buyers of your premium brands, you need to deliver better than Cavalier/Cobalt-level customer care.

          SAAB makes great cars (even despite lackluster performance compared to other European competition) even despite the GM content, and all the SAAB parts I have needed to buy have been perfect so far.

          I’ve said it quite a few times in the last two days on here and will say it again: F*(< GM.

  16. I think he was talking about China. Those US Saab buyers who were GM employees and family are likely to return to GM brands over say Volvo.

    Just a thought.

  17. I think this deal will eventually get done and I think Vic was anticipating this.
    And if you guys wanna support me in the Saab of North Olmstead win a Saab contest… go to and click “Be a Fan”. Please!

  18. If you look at the interview Victor held with Autoweek, he replies to the questions which approval might be cumbersome to get, VM replied GM. Anyway it may prove smart negotiation tactics at the end….

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.