Officially official: Saab is dead-Page 2: Grassroots Motorsports forum: Grassroots Motorsports Magazine

Subscribe get a full year for only $23.95 Sample Free Test Drive—no strings attached

1 2

Dec. 20, 2009 2:18 p.m. billy3esq Dork

Jeff wrote:

What would be GMs motivation to not let any deal, even a bad one, go through? Tax advantage for the write off? I'd think they'd be willing to take just about anything to get rid of these makes.

It's probably a combination of two things. (1) GM is trying to push too much debt, bad union contracts, and/or bad supplier agreements onto the buyer. (2) GM isn't giving the buyer enough transition support in things like production capacity, continuation of production based on common platforms, etc. Either one would make taking over a "failed" brand non-viable for the new investor.

My guess is that it's a lot of #2 because I've read a couple of articles that suggest GM is extremely concerned with its technology potentially ending up in the hands of competitors.

The tax consequences may also figure into it, but that's likely secondary. They'll get a big write off no matter what.
Dec. 20, 2009 8:35 p.m. procainestart Dork

NY Times said:
Hopes dimmed Friday when General Motors rejected a plan to sell it to Spyker Cars and said the brand would be shut down. But new interest surfaced Sunday, including a renewed offer from Spyker.

A spokesman for G.M. reacted cautiously to the new bid from Spyker, a tiny Dutch maker of high-end sports cars that many industry experts doubt could successfully revive Saab, the struggling Swedish brand. However, he said other potential buyers had expressed an interest since Friday’s announcement.

“We continue to wind down Saab, but during that process we’ve received several expressions of interest,” said Chris Preuss, the G.M. spokesman. “We evaluate these offers as they come, but beyond that we’re not making any comment.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/21/business/global/21saab.html
Dec. 20, 2009 8:56 p.m. mndsm Reader

GM just needs to quit trying to foist off excessive bad debt with this and let it go down. No one is going to assume millions in debt that is no fault of Saabs, in order to purchase the name. At this point, it'd almost be worth shuttering it, writing off the debts, and then selling the label, sort of like what happened with Circuit City, who is now owned by TigerDirect, and operates as an online store.
Dec. 21, 2009 9:20 a.m. 81gtv6 Reader

One thing that I find ironic in this whole mess is with everyone so conserned with fuel economy GM is killing a copmany with the most turbo experience out there.

On the other hand SAAB probably would have gone under in the early 90's if GM had not invested in them.
Dec. 21, 2009 4:17 p.m. White_and_Nerdy Reader

(2) GM isn't giving the buyer enough transition support in things like production capacity, continuation of production based on common platforms, etc.

My guess is that it's a lot of #2 because I've read a couple of articles that suggest GM is extremely concerned with its technology potentially ending up in the hands of competitors.

I believe that was Penske's reason for backing out of the Saturn acquisition - not enough backup from GM during the transition.
Dec. 21, 2009 4:21 p.m. billy3esq Dork

81gtv6 wrote:

One thing that I find ironic in this whole mess is with everyone so conserned with fuel economy GM is killing a copmany with the most turbo experience out there.

My guess is that turbo technology is what's getting sold to that Chinese company.

81gtv6 wrote:

On the other hand SAAB probably would have gone under in the early 90's if GM had not invested in them.

Almost certainly.
Dec. 21, 2009 5:10 p.m. jj New Reader

So what exactly did/is GM doing with the bailout money?
Dec. 22, 2009 9:41 a.m. MiatarPowar HalfDork

I liked this article:

http://www.speedsportlife.com/2009/12/21/avoidable-contact-29-lexus-killed-saab-bu...