Today we were again faced with some statements from James Cain regarding GM and their stance towards the parties that are interested in Saab (from E24.se):
Our contact with Brightwell consisted only of several letters they sent with requests to start a discussion. We answered that we are not interested. It has never been any negotiations or discussions, he said.
TT: Why did you not agree to meet them?
– We stand by our policy not to sell technology licenses to a new owner for Saab.
TT: Not in any way?
– No.
TT: Typically in business, everything has a price tag.
– Not in this case, says James Cain.
TT: Can you describe why GM does not want to give Saab a chance to survive?
– They have had several chances to survive. The business has been in terrible shape for a long time. That’s why GM, when we had our own problems, decided to close down Saab. It was not GM’s fault that Saab decided to stop paying their suppliers and their employees.
To make it short: I do not believe that. As I stated before he is a spokesman and his job is to tell the press what he is told. But there are always some things that are handled in certain levels of the management that don’t give reports to the press department about what they are doing. It is as simple as that. So you can’t even blame Mr. Cain for not knowing about everything, he is dependent on the info he gets. But what I really don’t like is the tone he uses from time to time. Maybe it is because GM did not like Brightwell openly stating that they were in talks. Maybe it is because Zamier once said “of course we are not negotiating with their spokesman”. But there are still better, more professional ways of stating something than the way he did. If GM wants to keep things behind closed doors I can repect that but if you want to deny do it in a proper way.
We at SU have been in contact with Brightwell and honestly I see no reason why they should have lied about GM. They put huge effort in this and noone spends some millions into something like that just for fun. They believed in Saab and had a very interesting and serious plan how to bring Saab back to life. And obviously they got quite far with GM up to a certain point.
It was pretty clear that we had to say goodbye to one or the other party at a certain point of this process and we still have a few in there, so there is no need to panic. Still it is sad to see Brightwell leave that soon.
As I already stated yesterday my belief in this is that GM found another party who fits them better or has more to offer. And that is not only meant in terms of money. There are other benefits that GM could like even more. In China they are facing a market that is more and more driven to suit the local brands. In Europe they still got their problems with Opel. So whether they like it or not they need some partners in certain fields to protect the main interest of their shareholders: to keep going and head into the future without facing a 2009 deja vu.
I know that not all of you may follow my arguments in this and there is a lot of personal view in here. But we have learned to be pretty critical towards GM. So why should I take James Cain’s words for the only everlasting truth?
Digging into his last sentence I would even want to correct him an bit. GM decided to sell Saab due to their own problems and the wind down decision only came because they could not agree with Spyker in time. Or should I take this a a freudian slip that tells me GM’s initial general intention was to close down Saab? I think I would not go that far but it could make one think.
On the other hand as a prove for GM’s goodwill he reveals another thing:
James Cain now reveals that GM was in favor of the Russian financier Vladimir Antonov, who is suspected of financial crimes, if he would have gone in with money.
– We had an agreement that had allowed him to invest in the company, but it did not succeed.
But that is another story…
This makes me sick of GM, again.
Unless they resurrect Pontiac, I have no desire to buy a new car from them in the future. GM’s behavior is disgusting in this matter of Saab.
I hope BMW buys them & GM’s stake is dissolved, with new Saabs coming out in about 4yrs. F GM!!
B/c BMW wouldn’t need GM’s licensing in the first place.
What is this “they have had several chances to survive” crap??
GM neglected Saab like they did some of their other brands like Pontiac as well as mismanaged them.
The ”several chances of survival” slip is simply outrageous.
With a 12 year old 9-5, no new hatchbacks in 14 years, delayed models, engine restrictions, downgraded interiors, the wind down in 09 -killing many Saab suppliers, letting VM run around China for 6 months to make deals with new investors that would never be accepted by them etc. etc. GM gave plenty of opportunity to for Saab to make it. Yeah right!
+1
Oh dear. That would be black Friday on top gear. Looking forward to see the special event at top gears.
I’m wondering since years why they run ahead with vauxhall branded Opels for the UK and Opel brand for rest of Europe.
Because of the supposed patriotism of UK car buyers. They think Britons prefer a car carrying an old British badge and assembled in the UK over the same car with a German badge and assembled in Germany.
Ivo
Which Vauxhall is being assembled in the UK?
I thought all the Insignias were assembled in Rüsselsheim.
Wasn’t the Astra produced in Ellesmere Port? Unless they shut it down already.
Isn’t that the plant JLR recently took over?
Luton and Ellesmere Port. See here for a map of all car assembly plants in the world (not exactly sure how recent the map is as THN is still on it as a GM facility): http://www.autonews.com/assets/PDF/CA590251125.PDF
Ivo
+ another
+95
Pontiac, Chevrolet, what’s the difference? That’s really hard for a European to understand. They have always been made side by side and have always been almost identical twins anyway….
Nice post mpprh.
The fact that Buick fell into neglect sums GM up. It was the cornerstone of that company, and its Scots-American founder David Dunbar Buick the inventor of the pushrod engine and the original V8. What an amazingly stupid, crass and – as we can see from the Marvellous Mr Cain – vindictive organisation it has turned out to be.
Amazing to think the degeneration set in at GM years before they had even heard of Saab, and yet GM keeps on going.
Down with General Moloch!
Saturn was never under Chevrolet nor were they sold in Chevrolet showrooms like GEO was. Saturn was an independent division, specializing in “import fighter” smaller cars. On average, the cars Saturn offered were more expensive than comparable Chevrolets.
Well, look at the American cars from the sixties and into the beginning of the seventies. They were not the same and they had great design and new technology unt so weiter. Swedish Police had American cars in the sixties Plymoth Valiant (Chrysler, I know).
What was one of the coolest cars in the world when I was a child? Pontiac GTO!! Look at them (use google) from 1964-1974 epic cars!! Then they tried to wake the GTO name up again in 2004…. and… well… those cars didn’t do it for me at least…
That late-day GTO was in fact a rebadged Holden Monaro. Not a bad car at all, actually. Top Gear loved it.
Ivo
It wasn’t a bad car, but the styling was as bland as bland can be—-and if flopped mightily. It should never, ever have worn the GTO badge.
The last GTO didn’t do very well, b/c it didn’t have any relation to the GTO of the 60’s w/its exterior & wasn’t marketed correctly. But it did have the power that a GTO should have.
I will agree that Saturn was more of a Chevy alternative than under Chevy.
Saturn developed a loyal following. Some of the things that Saturn dealers were doing should have been done at the other GM brand dealers too, but weren’t.
When Saturns were produced in Spring Hill, Tennessee, they had a little cult following. They only sold them at sticker—-no “deals” which was a new way to sell cars in the U.S. The cars were boring but competent. As soon as they started producing new models in Delaware—-a UWA plant—-the charm was lost. The cars weren’t as good, the cult following fizzled out. GM really doesn’t get much right, do they?
exactly!
Chevrolet and Pontiac were both terrible cars, but Pontiacs were better styled.
So now what? Is it truly the Endgame thats being played behind closed doors?
Not necessarily the end in a bad way.
Finally, someone talking some sense. I really wish the denial/begging posts would end.
+1
Well he’s basically saying to the public that the remaining Saab dealers need to offer some huge discounts on the 94. What’s the point of buying it if bodywork is going to be that hard to get?
All you need to do is drive and park very very carefully to avoid dents and other accidents. Easy, innit?
Ivo
I think in some of the comments made by recievers yesterday You could get a feeling that there might be bid or bids with technology agreements. Hope it would be question about GM agreements I still want my 9-5 SC….
And I still want my 9-5 SC.
+1
+1
And I think the 9-5 SC would be a direct competitor for Audi. Now with the new M550d which seems to aim in that direction (cars to take the whole family to ski), the 9-5 SC would make even more sense.
My hope is that whoever buys Saab will get licenses from GM for the 9-5. It’s too good a car not to be built again. And the SC…what a looker!
“We stand by our policy not to sell technology licenses to a new owner for Saab.”
TT: Not in any way?
– “No.”
TT: Typically in business, everything has a price tag.
-” Not in this case, says James Cain.”
I’ll leave it at that.
Bravo! Very well said! If in fact BMW is a bidder, they have more than enough engineering power and money to start fresh with new platforms.
And so, the truth comes out. It’s not that they’re against Chinese ownership, but that they want SAAB dead, and now that they got what they wanted, they are blocking every single attempt to revive SAAB.
Looks like the stance that GM is taking will and can only be changed or softened with US Government direct intervention. With GM’s arrogant and un-cooperative attitude, no deal is going to be successful. GM is behaving like a big bully down at a backlane of a tiny neighbourhood. The way Cain answered those questions sounds very much like a cry baby whose toy was snatched by another sibling.. Disgusting, to say the least.
I believe there can be a moment in the future to do that.
With all due respect to all of the dedicated folks here, it’s important to remember that what Brightwell and GM are telling to the media — including SU — is pure public-relations spin.
The actual truth is somewhere in the middle.
There was no P.R. spin in what Citizen Cain said. In fact, it was the opposite of P.R. He was as blunt as I could imagine. No GM technology will go to any buyer of Saab. There will be no GM technology in the next Saab. I think the exception MIGHT be the 9-3—-he might be focused on the Spyker era introductions—9-4 and 9-5, that are chock full of GM tech that is more current.
Mike, you can think what you want about the PR spin, but I spoke with him personally and I have to tell you, that is not what I took out of it. Zamier came across as honest and sincere and very upset that they had to pull out. In fairness, he didn’t have to call me. He could have just left it to the other media out there, but he took the time and as a decent judge of character, I have to say he didn’t seem to be spinning anything.
I don’t know. I hate translations from one language to another. Too many subtleties are lost.
Does anyone know where James Cain is when he is being interviewed? US or Sweden or somewhere else? Does anyone know what language he is being interviewed in? The quotes that keep being attributed to him just never sound like those of a company spokesperson. I’m skeptical of any James Cain interview at this point. Are there any videos?
Are you saying that Mr. Cain doesn’t exist?
A robot? A computer program? Hmmmm…..
What I am saying is that often the translations don’t make sense. You are right about the 9-4 X though. That statement was in English and an answer to an American reporter who inquired about rebadging the 9-4 X as a Chevy or a Buick. It was in an article where the journalist was commenting about what a good vehicle it was and why it was such a shame to stop production of it.
It’s the Cadillac SRX, isn’t it? So I’m sure they could rebadge it if they choose to. Problem is, rebadge it as what? In the U.S., it wouldn’t fit into any division except Buick, who already has the Enclave. Would have maybe worked as an Oldsmobile. Not sure about the rest of the world.
Close but not exactly. The 9-4 is much squarer and looks better. (Caddy’s just seem to have awful styling these days with those funky headlights). Don’t know about the rest but the 9-4 looks much more like a traditional SUV.
Could be english to swedish and back to english.
I understand what you’re saying, but wow, how hard is it to translate “NO.” “NO” is the bottom line here. I don’t see this as being lost in translation. It was a very direct answer, details obscured by language or not. “NO.” said James.
“It was not GM’s fault that Saab decided to stop paying their suppliers and their employees.”
Hmmmmmmmmm…..
Remember 2008/2009 Mr Cain? 19th February suppliers stopped deliveries to Saab due to unpaid bills….
I would say that GM was ultimately responsible for Saab back then, and let´s see. how many suppliers and emplyees did not get paid back then..?
I agree with Till. This guy (hopefully) don´t have the full picture…
I WANT MY 9-5SC!!!
Correct me if I am wrong, but it was directly GM’s fault that Saab hasn’t paid their suppliers. It doesn’t take a genius to see that. Saab needed access to capital markets. A car company doesn’t exist in a vacuum. Just ask GM how hard it is to survive without giant capital injections that your business model couldn’t generate. They’ll tell you.
Sorry, that just isn’t true at all. Saab under Spyker control didn’t pay their suppliers, and in April 2011 suppliers stopped providing parts, which shut down the Saab factory. GM at that point was just a vendor to Saab.
yes. I think it would be better to do 93-II in a way to not hit GMS IP rights (diesel engine, auto gearbox) in low volumes and do a contract to build Minis as well in Trollhättan to get the people jobs. And PhoeniX must be the goal.
Don’t waste time with GM. Risky and expensive business.
Fully agree!
+1 over here.
I think GM it’s a dead but believe me, I’d love to be wrong though.
Has anyone considered the chance they might be telling the truth ?
No deal, period.
a dead end
Couldn’t agree more. Time to move on.
Olav, when the dust settles and the files are open to lawyers, or journalists or historians, we will see – and I am quite convinced of this – that Saab did indeed turn a profit over several years at GM but this was disguised by GM’s – and I am using a euphemism here – creative accounting. Even by GM’s own unique – another euphemism – measure Saab did in fact turn a profit in 2003 I believe.
I’ve read that GM statements suggest that Saab was profitable for 2 or 3 years of the 20 year run. Besides your wanting Saab to have been secretly profitable, are there any facts that suggest it?
Angelo, as I’m not able to talk to your 11 year old cat like you do, I’m just not sure.
My cat is named Harry and he weighs over 20 pounds—an orange tabby. So he is a fat cat, but unlike GM Managers, he’s friendly. By the way, he asked that I post the following link, just to put to rest any question about what GM has repaid and what GM owes to the United States Treasurey.
http://www.newser.com/story/140728/gm-to-spend-500m-on-worker-bonuses.html
Are we to connect the dots and guess that Brightwell was the source of the conviction SU got that “GM is talking”? If so, I believe they were indeed not.
No dots to connect in here, that one came from somewhere else.
Bayern hopefully :p
But in reality I don’t even believe it myself 🙁
After owned five Saab, I’ve just sold my last sport hatch to buy a…. Peugeot….. I’m in trouble, I’ve a lot of reasons to worry once more!
Roland: Here in the U.S., we don’t even have the option to buy a new Peugeot!
Be grateful for that. The last fun Peugeot was the one Columbo drove. And we all know how reliable that one was.
Ivo
Or, after the reveal yesterday that BMW may be resurrecting the Triumph brand, Saab DNA may appear in Triumph branded FWD cars? 🙁
It wouldn’t be the first time that the names ‘Saab’ and ‘Triumph’ have been seen together…
Not so Triumphant way back with the first 99´s…..
The original B202 was a distant version of the Triumph HL1250 2 litre engine
I think the receivers told us that the rights of Saab belongs in three parts to Saab AB, Saab Automobile AB and an other division/ spin off of Saab.
The grippen image belongs to Scania.
The other “SAAB” is not only about aircraft.
God I’m sick of that puppet!
That’s namecalling David!
Shameless interview. Business in terrible shape? That is under GM foor almost 20 years, so they had to blame thereselves. I’m really angry now!
Yes, it is amazing that he tries to blame GM:s business problems on Saab (and Opel), when they are wholly integrated into GM.
Bland Motors, bah!
Thus the reason I think GM should rot in hell.
Also, do not be surprised if there are other reasons that GM is fearful of SAABs survival. I have a gut feeling that there is information on actions taken by GM while they owned SAAB. Specifically whether or not GM “cooked the books” and transferred liabilities and debts into SAAB all while transferring assets away from SAAB – the latter we know they did – and all of which would cause them to be crucified by even the government.
Food for thought people; food for thought.
Chomp, chomp … mmm, yes, this does taste suspicious. You are spot on there, I reckon, Saab4life.
Just STOP talking and writing about GM.
It is over, out, finished.
Why don’t we look forward and try to go our own way, eventually with new partners that are more trustworthy then this GM group.
http://www.autocar.co.uk/News/NewsArticle/AllCars/261537/
That is the fact about BMW rumours. Why would they revive 2 brands at the same time?
I think only YM remained with almost no chance knowing GM’s position.
Who is saying that they want to revive Triumph?
But they could. They’ve the rights on the name. If they don’t use it commercially do they lose the rights?
Speaking of official statements.
I don’t know how reliable this info is but BMW is said to have officially denied interest in buying the Ducati (from an unreliable source http://www.indiancarsbikes.in/cars/bmw-interested-saab-buy-race-ducati-56263/ ) but has said to ttela http://ttela.se/ekonomi/saab/1.1543418-gm-inget-har-forandrats- that they don’t comment on rumours and therefor not on the rumour that they are interested in Saab.
So, they deny the rumour about Ducati but say they don’t want to comment on the rumour about Saab.
I like rumours 🙂
As for a more credible source…
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-13/ducati-owner-said-to-mull-sale-or-hong-kong-ipo-as-soon-as-3q.html
It’s starting to look interesting.
I need to chill some Bavarian beer for the upcoming celebration 😉
I wish we could still get the original Lowenbrau in the U.S.—-Bavarian beer indeed!
In the U.S. you can get Wernesgrüner at Aldi supermarkets. It is a pretty decent German pils.
The situation now is that there is a handful bidders for what remains. At least one of them has said they will continue developing the Phoenix platform (and subsequently the 9-3 replacement).
If what you wrote was true, then nobody would put a 2 billion SEK bid on the table.
That doesn’t mean that things would not pan out the way you describe, but currently that is the less likely scenario.
I’d like to see GM in the hell and all their inversors. I love you James Cain
Really interesting to read how GM acts.
It seams like they have no knowledge what so ever of the force an internet information storm against them would lead to.
The car world is indeed big and Saab people are generally highly educated, connected and verbal.
It is high time to let the car world know how GM acts.
I urge you and others to go to GM’s Facebook pages and join me in occupying and speaking some truth there. It’s amazing to me—-but it really seems as though on average, there are nearly as many negative posts as there are positive ones. Go to Kia’s Facebook pages or any other manufacturer—-and it is probably 90% positive. At GM? Maybe 50% over the course of a week? You’re right—-time to let the car world know what they risk by buying GM.
That last paragraph smacks of sour grapes to me. It’s like he is saying ‘If GM can’t make a success of Saab then we’ll be damned if we will allow any one else to!’
To be honest, I gave up taking much notice of what Mr Cain has to say some time ago and I suggest we all do the same. Just my opinion of course.
Griffin Up! Cuore Sportivo!
Yes, why not at least make some money—-when you still owe the U.S. treasury 20 billion dollars. I’ve already rifled off three letters to my three representatives (two Senators and a Congressman). GM owes me, as a taxpayer, money. Not only are they walking away from the licensing money—they are also ruining resale value on my car and causing some Saab employees in the U.S. their jobs, adding to our unemployment. It’s obsurd. GM should not be allowed to exercise this power that the contract allows until they are square with us financially.
Saabman, that’s a good point but GM sold BAIC old tooling for the OG9-5 and some outdated tech used on the 9-3SS — nothing that it planned to use for future models. That tech deal is completely separate from any deal that would use current IP, and that would be the case for any stop-gap 9-3 on the market until the Phoenix-based models were built.
“To make it short: I do not believe that.” I agree.
Based on what? Not WANTING to believe it, or is there something more tangible that can give hope that it’s false? I don’t want to believe it either—-but it’s one of those situations where the grass is green, not purple. I can tell myself the grass is purple if I really want purple grass—-but it’s not, so what’s the point?
Past performance. We will see.
I”m afraid Angelo is right. There is no way Mr. Cain would make such definitive statements unless he is reflecting company policy. If, as some seem to think, Cain is not being kept informed of the true situation, then GM is destroying the credibility of its own official spokesperson – something I don’t think any company would want to do.
Agree, no reason to dig your head into the ground anymore.
Cains message is crystal clear.
Yes, but this means that any buyer of Saab will have it that much harder to resurrect the brand since the worldwide dealer network (what is left of it) will have a hard time surviving until new Saabs with no GM tech IP can be designed, tested and built. Not to say someone will not try, but the job just got that much harder if this is as final as it is made to sound.
Unless a 9-3 can continue, with or without GM????
I feel for the individual Saab Dealerships because they will be hurt most by GM’s actions. Even if the best case scenario pans out – BMW buys Saab and builds several variants on the Phoenix platform – it will be at least 2-3 years away. With no product to sell in the interim, the current Saab dealership network will collapse. So perhaps in 2-3 years from we will start seeing BMW-MINI-SAAB showrooms?
I’m afraid you’re right. And that’s even a best case scenario.
As long as GM doesn’t think rational but acts emotional instead.
Well, the dealers could sell Mini’s for the time being. Or convert to BMW group dealers and resume selling/add Saabs as soon as they become available again. A brand can never have enough dealers and service points.
Ivo
Makes me sick to my stomach everytime he opens his mouth……………
http://www.just-auto.com/news/gm-fights-back-as-bitter-brightwell-exits-saab-bid_id120715.aspx
“If someone were to acquire the [Saab] factory in Trollhattan and produce vehicles, including Saabs, it would not be an issue,” said the GM spokesman.
Hmm..I wonder if it wouldn’t be..
Interesting that just-auto talks to a “GM spokesman” and not to Mr Cain. And also quite intriguing to hear that “spokesman” only talking about the 9-4x and the 9-5, no single word about the 9-3.
+1
+1.
But I wish I didn’t.
Fat lady Cain has sung…
Yes, a company like Mahindra desparately NEEDS (not just wants, but NEEDS) a familiar nameplate (even one with some baggage) to sell vehicles in new markets, including the U.S. They need dealers to sell their (EPA approved) trucks too. So yes, grafting a Saab nose and tail treatment on a Ssangyong vehicle, upgrading the interior and drive characteristics and selling it as a Saab is a lifeline for a company like M&M to enter markets where they currently have no presence at all.
I agree in principle. A Saabless motor industry is a sad one and I for one will miss Saab immensely (if the worst happens) but in a world full of mindless clones, are there enough buyers for Saabs to make it viable for a manufacturer to poor countless millions into? I do, really, really hope so!
I am not a fanboy of GM. But I would imagine the tone of this interview is lost in translation. Typically, when you translate from another language into English, you lose all pleasantries.
What language does Cain speak?
He speaks Corporate. Technically not a language, but as unintelligible as the languages Law, Bureaucracy and Politician.
Months ago in this situation each logical thinking human being interested in Saab must have developed a plan avoiding GM. Hopefully someone thinks reasonable and set the stage for it. I don´t understand why everyone is running to GM begging for a license they never wanted to accord.
My thoughts exactly. Hopefully the remaining bidders are dazzling the Receivers with a business plan that throws GM out on their fat ass. It might be the only way for Saab to be sold as a whole.
This US citizen would like to point out to other US citizens that GM just had its most profitable year ever, in part because it solidified its core brands by cutting Saab, Hummer, Pontiac and Saturn.
In part because they don’t have to pay corporate income taxes for 10 years. In part because they were floated with billions from Uncle Sam. In part because municipalities are being pressured to buy GM junk for their fleets. Hey Mike, guess what? GE just announced that they are buying 12000 Chevy Volts for their corporate fleet. Why do you suppose that is? Jeff Immelt of GE is just a really sweet, green guy? Or maybe the White House had something to do with it? Gee, ya think?
Maybe it was the fact that as a company that is one of the world’s largest producers of electric energy, it was a good move to use electric cars?
Maybe it was the black helicopters that ferried the Trilateral Commission to GE headquarters? Grassy knoll?
Not at all, just plain, out in the open cronie capitalism, that’s all.
But….. BMW and GM do already cooperate on fuell cell technology. Maybe…… etc. etc.
While there was a bailout (that started before GM’s Chapter 11), there was an organized bankruptcy proceeding that shed all that debt. In other words, there was both. No longer having that legacy debt is a significant contributor to GM’s current net profitability.
Sigh…..Actually, the UAW contracts were rewritten to change elements of health care, pensions, and pay. That was one of the contingencies that the US govt demanded before the bailout.
http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2009/05/uaw_leaders_endorse_gm_contrac.html
http://local10retirees.com/41401.html
and so on…
…and partial OWNERSHIP of the corporation Mike? Don’t forget that tiny detail. It was a sweetheart campaign repayment for union support. Traditiona, organized bankruptcy would have let them emerge leaner—-and would have been the most fair approach in a free markets economy. How is this fair to Ford?
Ford could have filed bankruptcy if they wanted the same deal or a similar one. It didn’t because the Ford family would have lost their 30% (maybe 40%) voting rights.
I hate this argument about what a saint Ford was. It only did what it did because the Ford family saved its bacon. Neither GM nor Chrysler had a Ford family to bail them out.
Mike: Since you’re an expert on how those contracts were rewritten, are you aware that there was no restriction on $7000.00 bonuses being doled out to the rank and file? Low and behold, guess what? GM just announced those $7000.00 bonuses to their peeps~! Where is our 20 billion again?
Profit sharing was part of the UAW contract renegotiation. The UAW worked out a similar deal with Ford that was picked up by GM and Chrysler.
Next?
Mike: Ford doesn’t still owe the Treasury 20 billion dollars. I don’t care if they share their profits with their employees or with the Royal Family—-doesn’t matter to me. What GM does with THEIR profits, while they owe the U.S. money—THAT matters to me. Next?
Another contributor to their current net profitability is that they were relieved of paying corporate tax for 10 years (I assume beginning in 2009). That sure helps. I’m sure Ford would love that peach of a deal too. They weren’t good enough at begging though.
Sorry not all US Ford plants closed… Most closed and are no longer in the US tho…
GM shill?
This is not a forum for a political debate. Both of you are much too intelligent for this. Believe it or not, Saab vehicles don’t have factory installed bumper-stickers that read: Republican (or) Democrat….Liberal (or) Conservative. Saab is ALL inclusive! Get over it guys.
1. I did not know there was a plant in Arlington
2. I made the point about Ford to point out they are a company first.
3. I agree- except GM makes crap everywhere
4. Same here- I dont vote for party but rather people
5. Sport utilities seem to be the family prefered vehicle…. It was once wagons and sedans
Ford is a company too.
Do you think a new owner would still service older Saabs—-if the new owner doesn’t begin selling Saab branded vehicles for a few years? Would they basically only service “THEIR” Saabs, or do you think they would open their service departments to GM era and Spyker era Saabs?
I guess that new owner would have to be pretty stupid not to continue selling parts. If no complete Saabs can be built for a year or two, the parts production and distribution would be the only profit center for Saab until the Phoenix 900 arrives. Moreover, not doing it would alienate most of the existing worldwide customer base, i.e. people like us. Would you buy another Saab if the new owner would leave you out in the cold as far as service and spare parts are concerned?
Ivo
As part of this sale, will the new owner gain the rights to produce/sell the parts—-or somehow, does that stay with GM or someone else, especially for the GM era cars (through 2009)?
In plain terms, GM sees Saab as some sort a threat, if it becomes a success under the ownership of a company with enough funds to carry out the job correctly! Why else would GM not wish to talk about selling licenses and making some money? Just a thought!!
Actually I see this *all* about money. Cain said SAAB stiffed them for US$100M. New owner needs to cover that and pay a penalty ($10M?) for starters. If they approached it from that position, perhaps they’d pay ball…?
…play ball …? (not pay)
TT: Typically in business, everything has a price tag.
– “Not in this case,” says James Cain.
E: Are you calling the honorable James Cain a liar? Yes. You are saying this is “all about money” and he is saying in this case, there is no price tag. I’m very disappointed that you don’t believe the upstanding Citizen Cain.
Angelo: Haha. You are still smarting from someone calling you a name caller … I can tell. 😉
I am saying if company X walked into GM’s HQ with a briefcase containing US$110M then I could see them listening. If there is no “Show me the Money” moment, they’re not dancing.
@BarryMemphis I know … I appreciate the sarcasm. I get him. 🙂 Catch you soon, my friend.
Talk about GM killing there self on the World market buy there own act,
And then we just can say to Mr James Cain : “It was not the Europenans fault that GM lost significant market in Europe and the rest of the world . It is just cos of there behavour regarding SAAB. ”
I do never going to spens one cent on there products in the future and btw…I want my 9-5 SC as well.
after doing some research on the internet (Google, GM.com), i found no James Cain inrelation with GM. there IS a James M. Cain (writer, died in 1977) and a James Cain, actor. also at http://www.gm.com/company/aboutGM/GM_Corporate_Officers.html i didnot find a James Cain als CIO, or the like….
are we being fooled herer by GM???
‘here’, that is… 🙂
He’s a spokesperson, not an officer.
Just google this
site:gm.com james cain
And you’ll find stuff like this:
Jim Cain
GM Communications
Tel.: 313-667-7758
Mobile: 313-407-2843
[email protected]
Why even try it … leave GM to their destiny.. IF youngman has the financial power to finish the Phoenix then it just might fly.
I don´t need to have the latest model of any brand, I want a Saab and if I can´t get it I will stick with the present models…..
Isn’t it ironic that the movie Citizen Kane profiles an arrogant corporation—-and today, we read the ramblings of James Cain—-representing an arrogant corporation?
Just call him Citizen Cain.
hahaha!!!
Someone out there is taking the p… now, this has gone on long enough almost farcical. If GM wont sell to anyone, tell us and stop wasting out time and energy. Make a GOD DAMN STATEMENT to the world and tell us !!! BMW if you are up for a bid, TELL EVERYONE, and anyone else that is interested. If SAAB is dead, i’ve still got to get up for work tomorrow !!!
good on you
Start e-mailing the various newspapers, go for it!
Ditto here! ! !
rofl……as someone who used to do this for a living, here are your headlines:
“GM: We Won’t Allow Foreign Firms to Buy Intellectual Property at Fire-Sale Prices”
“GM Says ‘No’ to Foreign Vultures”
“GM Bucks Trend, Refuses Bad Deal With China”
and so on.
There are myriad ways for GM to positively spin this in the media.
Very good point.
Mike: That reminds me of something—from the cold war era. The U.S. swim team went to Moscow for a contest against the U.S.S.R olympic team. They were the only countries competing. The U.S. swimmers won the meet. Provda (Is that spelled right?) reported it as: “U.S.S.R. places second in swim meet. In the same meet, the U.S. team finished second to last.” Yes, it’s amazing what you can do with words.
A fair point…
But GM truly doesn’t care about what happens in Trollhattan, but it deeply cares about how it’s perceived in the US after the bailout — despite its success. That’s where the right words come into play, and it’s far less damaging to be seen as heartless toward a small city whose own government left it for dead. That’s the opinion of a few thousand die-hard Saabisti. A few million people likely care that GM is protecting its US investment by refusing to get fleeced by China.
Let them ‘spin it’ any way they wish. GM would be forced to ANSWER. PERIOD. And when the facts are revealed, they would lose the battle for/of integrity. It needs to happen, regardless the outcome. What do we stand to lose?
…other than our company? We must fight, and we must fight intelligently. If we fail, then at a least we know that we tried to win. Sitting by, waiting for GM to bless a ‘deal’ is pure bullocks! LET THEM SPIN. I care not.
Again, answer for what? For securing its IP from foreign ownership? For protecting its market share? For aggressively trying to recoup the US government investment?
What other facts are there?
I’ve thought of the same basic premise. In fact, aren’t the Chinese considered the absolute best in the world at reverse engineering?
Yup, precisely what I have been stating on di.se and other places.
Saab already knows the technology
It is not a matter of technology transfer it is a matter of usage of technology in a defined context of a certain car model, namely the NG 9-5.
The 9-4X is an even more stupid argument since it is GM that makes it.
Hey David, great to hear from you. I fully understand the premise that EVERYTHING has a price. If someone offered enough…perhaps they could buy GM! That isn’t the point. The point is that (through Cain) GM has stated that they want Saab dead. And, to the extent that they can make it happen, they intend that to be the result. A rediculous offer to appease GM or to get their ‘approval’ is just that, and will not happen.
Whether legal or not does not help since the judgement of that would come way too late. Thus there is no point in taking that route.
Was GM in their rights to say no to every effort to raise outside funds? It might be a breach of a contract to refuse to deliver. But that does not help us at this moment.
I believe GM’s full intent right from the start, is to completely shutdown Saab. And they seem to be systematically doing it by talking to parties and denying their offers. GM is sick! They GM-ized Saab when they should have let the Swedes use all of their own technology. Swede technology is way better than GM technology!! I hope Saab somehow makes it through this! There’s got to be a silver lining somewhere!
+++