Comments

Report: GM and Saab Reach a Mexican Stand-Off Over Chinese Deal

|

When General Motors sold Saab to Spyker, company execs must have been somewhat relieved to get the brand out of their hands. However, GM didn’t cut its ties completely as it remains a shareholder and a major parts and technology supplier. Now this is proving to be a problem for both companies.

After receiving court protection from its creditors, Swedish Automobile N.V. agreed to sell 100% of Saab to Chinese partners Pang Da and Zeijiang Youngman Lotus Automobile, it had to get approval from its shareholders. General Motors, though, almost immediately raised concerns over the deal .

According to a report from Swedish newspaper Dagens Industri, GM is still blocking the deal because, at it has already stated, it does not want its own technology to be transferred to its competitors – and for the paltry sum of €100 million, we might add.

Dagens Industri also quotes GM spokesperson, James Cain, as saying: “Saab and Youngman can do whatever they think is best for the company. But if it is a 100% takeover of Saab, they are going to do it without the cars we deliver, the 9-4X, and without GM’s technology.”

So the question is, will the Chinese partners be willing to buy Saab without GM’s technology – that is, just the brand name, its debts and not much more?

Story References: Autonews



10 Comments:

We Don't Need No Stinking GM said... »November 23, 2011

Well, if Saab calls in the Mexican drug cartels to handle GM—no contest. GM will be eradicated in a matter of weeks.

jebas said... »November 23, 2011

Oh GM, your good old stupid side is back, it was nice seeing you half decent for a while

Freeway1996 said... »November 23, 2011

GM's inferior technology is what ruined Saab to begin with. GM stock is tanking right now. I know the people won't stand for another bail-out.

The Chinese should retaliate by banning GM sales in their country.

paul71 said... »November 23, 2011

SO GM is stupid for not wanting its own technology to be transferred to its competitors for dirt cheap? I can't blame GM for that and if anything it is a good business move by GM.

benT said... »November 24, 2011

'Mexican Stand-Off' = guns'N'drugs @ 20 paces.

who needs a genetically modified SAAB?

paul71 said... »November 24, 2011

lol so GM tech is inferior and no good but yet the Chinese should retaliate because GM will not let a Chinese competitor to get their hands on it,  well if the tech is no good why should they retaliate?  never mind the fact it is not Saab's tech but GM and GM has a right to protect their tech. Lord you GM haters don;t even stop to think before you all write your pitiful posts slamming GM with crap that don't even add up to a hill of beans...

paul71 said... »November 24, 2011

BTW if the Chinese banned GM sales in their country. the Chinese partners of GM would be hurt too. Again your crap adds up to a hill of beans.

Freeway1996 said... »November 25, 2011

It's unpatriotic to buy a GM product. Every time a GM product is sold it cheats the free market system. You Paul71 are a communist. That's the REAL problem I have with GM.

Anonymous said... »November 26, 2011

GM execs anxious to dump SAAB? SAAB provided GM with A LOT of tech and engineering. You see it everything from the new turbo Buicks to the XWD Cadillac crossover. SAAB was profitable too, but GM was manipulating the books. Basically GM bled SAAB to death, not allowing sufficient investment in products. Then they force them to make 9-2X and 9-7X, rebadged GM and Subaru bullsh*t. SAAB is one of the greats in auto history, and true auto enthusiasts realize it is a loss to have SAAB disappear. Fu*k GM for poisoning this grand brand, decimating its engineering and design staff, and letting it rot on the vine. Look, those morons at GM even destroyed their homegrown brands: Saturn, Oldsmobile, Pontiac, etc., etc. You GM fanboys then act like SAAB was blessed to be "saved" by GM. Utter nonsense.... GM is worse than Daimler at rape....

benT said... »November 26, 2011

just EXACTLY WHAT happened in
1996???
     1971????

Post a Comment