StasisLAX From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 3267 posts, RR: 6 Posted (3 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 1783 times:
GM has finally said that more than 80 percent of Saab's creditors approved a deal to restructure its debt. Swedish media outlets are reporting that Koenigsegg, a Swedish sports car group, has signed a letter of intent to buy the Saab brand. But can Saab survive even under new ownership? I think not....
Mortyman From Norway, joined Aug 2006, 3231 posts, RR: 2 Reply 1, posted (3 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 1673 times:
From what I understand, Norwegian and Swiss investors are involved too. They may turn Saab into a more exclusive brand, creating cars for a narrower market.
Bongodog1964 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2006, 3019 posts, RR: 2 Reply 2, posted (3 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 1642 times:
I read elsewhere that the buyers require GM to write off a lot of Saabs debt, and hand over a large amount of money, on exchange for which they will take Saab off their hands. A pedant would say that when you sell something you expect to get some money for it, not have to hand yet more over in order to be rid of it.
IMO the only chance Saab has, is to go back to producing innovative non mainstream cars. The shame of a once proud company who produced the likes of the 900 turbo, reduced to knocking out slightly upmarket hatchbacks based on GM floorpans.
Flighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 7451 posts, RR: 2 Reply 4, posted (3 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 1593 times:
Saab should do well. The Scandanavians have great product design and good business sense. With smart management, Saab could grow themselves organically to compete with BMW, in the future. This used to be their position past years. Their brand is still pretty good with a heritage of good cars.
Just because brain-dead GM failed to manage Saab, doesn't mean that it is impossible. GM managers couldn't manage their way out of a wet paper bag!! IMO. Saab needs direction from local people who understand the "DNA of the brand" and how to get it back into their products. BMW really paints the way forward for Saab.
Kent350787 From Australia, joined May 2008, 888 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (3 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 1577 times:
The 900 replaced the mid-90s was the last SAAB developed platform, wasn't it? Or was it the 9-5, which replaced the 9000 which was developed cooperatively with FIAT (Chroma - ugh), Alfa Romeo (164) and Lancia (wasn't it?), and the 900 was already a Cavalier platform before GM.
I can't see SAAB surviving - it doesn't have the volume (approx. 100k cars pa worldwide) and Koenigsegg surely doesn't have the resources to develop saloon car platforms.
I lusted after 90, 900 and 9000 turbos ,and almost bought one of the "Cavalier" 900s for some reason. But SAAB now? Meh....
Bongodog1964 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2006, 3019 posts, RR: 2 Reply 6, posted (3 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 1548 times:
Quoting Flighty (Reply 4):
Saab should do well. The Scandanavians have great product design and good business sense. With smart management, Saab could grow themselves organically to compete with BMW, in the future. This used to be their position past years. Their brand is still pretty good with a heritage of good cars.
Just because brain-dead GM failed to manage Saab, doesn't mean that it is impossible. GM managers couldn't manage their way out of a wet paper bag!! IMO. Saab needs direction from local people who understand the "DNA of the brand" and how to get it back into their products. BMW really paints the way forward for Saab.
This sounds like the policy which has failed miserably at both Saab and Jaguar "we can build our brand and up production to the level of BMW"
There is a limit to the number of people who want to pay for a basically standard saloon car with a few fancy extras.
Rabenschlag From Germany, joined Oct 2000, 993 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (3 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 1532 times:
Quoting Flighty (Reply 4): Saab should do well. The Scandanavians have great product design and good business sense. With smart management, Saab could grow themselves organically to compete with BMW, in the future. This used to be their position past years. Their brand is still pretty good with a heritage of good cars.
While owned by GM, they made losses except for one year. At the same time, they had access to a world wide marketing network and shared technologies from within GM.
I cannot see how they would do better under the new ownership. To the contrary.
MD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13344 posts, RR: 64 Reply 9, posted (3 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 1502 times:
Quoting Rabenschlag (Reply 7): Quoting Flighty (Reply 4):
Saab should do well. The Scandanavians have great product design and good business sense. With smart management, Saab could grow themselves organically to compete with BMW, in the future. This used to be their position past years. Their brand is still pretty good with a heritage of good cars.
While owned by GM, they made losses except for one year. At the same time, they had access to a world wide marketing network and shared technologies from within GM.
I cannot see how they would do better under the new ownership. To the contrary.
Most likely they suffered from the same GM missmanagement as Opel. Managers and executives, who saw their stay at the company who didn't identify with SAAB or Opel, but saw their stay with either only as a stepping stone to a lucrative job in GM's headquarters in the US.
Not being interested in improving either Opel or SAAB as individual companies, they did what surely would impress the beancounters in Detroit, cutting costs by stopping individual product development in these companies.
Fxramper From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 7029 posts, RR: 93 Reply 10, posted (3 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 1479 times:
First Saturn, then Hummer, and now Saab. Government Motors is a joke.
Flighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 7451 posts, RR: 2 Reply 11, posted (3 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 1442 times:
Quoting Fxramper (Reply 10): First Saturn, then Hummer, and now Saab. Government Motors is a joke.
These are the "valuable" brands. You are not mentioning "Pontiac" and "Oldsmobile" which were so lacking in value, they were simply dissolved.
Quoting Kent350787 (Reply 5): I can't see SAAB surviving - it doesn't have the volume (approx. 100k cars pa worldwide) and Koenigsegg surely doesn't have the resources to develop saloon car platforms.
The government of Sweden stands ready to provide loan guarantees (essentially provide capital to engineer and manufacture the products). They will not need to go through the private financial sector, at least not for a long time.
Quoting Rabenschlag (Reply 7): While owned by GM, they made losses except for one year. At the same time, they had access to a world wide marketing network and shared technologies from within GM.
You are making a convenient judgment based on just a superficial story. GM actually provided Saab absolutely nothing. Saab developed the 9-5 and 9-3 models basically all by itself. GM did not provide Saab ANY funding to make ANY truly new cars since 2003, or really since 1999. Their attempt to market Subarus and Trailblazers through Saab was a miscarriage as well.
Saab was bled dry. GM's financial ineptness is already well chronicled, so I don't need to describe it here. GM is a kiss of death to almost everything it touches. They simply didn't invest in the product. As you point out, they could have. GM had tons of money and a huge financial base -- one that used to dwarf not only all car companies, but all companies in the world period. GM used to be the world's largest and most profitable firm. But anyway, they somehow neglected to allow Saab to develop any new cars, even a modest lineup.
As soon as Saab gets the green light to unveil their lineup and return to true Saab standards, and eliminate GM philosophies about de-contenting their cars, they will do well. In any case, we can sit back and watch what happens.
By contrast, I would point out Ford has managed Volvo quite well. Volvo is profitable, or it was through 2008.
Bongodog1964 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2006, 3019 posts, RR: 2 Reply 12, posted (3 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 1428 times:
Quoting Flighty (Reply 11): You are making a convenient judgment based on just a superficial story. GM actually provided Saab absolutely nothing. Saab developed the 9-5 and 9-3 models basically all by itself. GM did not provide Saab ANY funding to make ANY truly new cars since 2003, or really since 1999. Their attempt to market Subarus and Trailblazers through Saab was a miscarriage as well.
Saab was bled dry. GM's financial ineptness is already well chronicled, so I don't need to describe it here. GM is a kiss of death to almost everything it touches. They simply didn't invest in the product. As you point out, they could have. GM had tons of money and a huge financial base -- one that used to dwarf not only all car companies, but all companies in the world period. GM used to be the world's largest and most profitable firm. But anyway, they somehow neglected to allow Saab to develop any new cars, even a modest lineup.
As soon as Saab gets the green light to unveil their lineup and return to true Saab standards, and eliminate GM philosophies about de-contenting their cars, they will do well. In any case, we can sit back and watch what happens.
Surely the thing that GM provided to Saab was money, it was unviable in its independent form when GM bought it, hence why Saab-Scania wanted rid of the car division.
Before GM, Saab had a quirky product range with some good ideas, but didn't make a profit. With GM they went populist and more mainstream, but still failed to make a profit.
Flighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 7451 posts, RR: 2 Reply 13, posted (3 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 1414 times:
Quoting Bongodog1964 (Reply 12): Before GM, Saab had a quirky product range with some good ideas, but didn't make a profit. With GM they went populist and more mainstream, but still failed to make a profit.
You are right on both counts. I can't say they will make money, but what they will do is deploy a fully new line of cars. The executives now in charge will have a singular focus on the Saab brand and making it great. GM had an appalling lack of focus on the long term strategy.
Let's wait to measure their success until they deploy their new lineups. GM never allowed them to do that. The 9-5 has been chronically delayed for many years due to funding. The 9-3 was developed on the cheap, below Saab standards. Now they will get their fair chance. I believe Saab have engineering to build excellent quality cars, if their executives actually care about that. At BMW, they do. At Saab, they used to care. Now they will again police their own standards, without constant meddling by the imbeciles at GM WHQ in Detroit.
Whether that leads to profits in 5 years, is impossible to know. But to extrapolate from their GM years is unfair IMO. GM failed to utilize many of its assets, Saab being just one of them. I also think Cadillac would do better if it were a Korean or Chinese brand, free from GM's "mental black hole" that ate some $100B in investor capital over the last 20 years, money that could have done a lot of great things, but was sacrificed on the altar of GM's past greatness, and the complete uncreativity of its younger executives. I am more impressed with homeless men's mental skills. At least they keep themselves alive by their wits.
StasisLAX From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 3267 posts, RR: 6 Reply 15, posted (3 years 11 months 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 1338 times:
Reuters (via CNN News) is reporting the sale of Saab is still not "a done deal" in the eyes of the Swedish government.
Sale terms were not disclosed but the agreement includes expected financing to be guaranteed by Sweden. "The sale, expected to close by the end of the third quarter of this year, includes an expected $600 million funding commitment from the European Investment Bank (EIB) guaranteed by the Swedish government," GM Europe said in a statement on its website.
But the Swedish government industry ministry has stated that "the issue of financing support was not yet resolved. We do not yet know if Koenigsegg group will need loan guarantees or not," the state secretary for Sweden's industry ministry told Reuters.
StarAlliance38 From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 1445 posts, RR: 4 Reply 16, posted (3 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 1311 times:
I just hope the new owners would bring back development on the SAAB a/c!
Bongodog1964 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2006, 3019 posts, RR: 2 Reply 17, posted (3 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 1278 times:
Quoting StarAlliance38 (Reply 16): I just hope the new owners would bring back development on the SAAB a/c!
Bring back the SAAB!
The aerospace part is a totally different company these days
Until the 1990's Saab-Scania was a conglomerate covering military & civil aircraft, defence systems, car manufacturing and commercial vehicles.
Saab cars went to GM
Scania trucks became an independent company (now mainly owned by Volkswagen)
The remainder stayed with the original Saab company, who subsequently dropped the civil aircraft side.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 3267 posts, 
From Norway, joined Aug 2006, 3231 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2006, 3019 posts, 
From Germany, joined Oct 2000, 993 posts, 
From Australia, joined May 2008, 888 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
