The last attempt at saving Saab failed when GM said it would not supply or license technology to Saab if it were 100% owned by PangDa and Youngman, scuttling the Chinese firms’ bid for outright control of the company. Now the two firms have sent a revised proposal to The General in hopes that they can provide safeguards for intellectual property, allowing them to purchase Saab without losing the link to GM. After all, both the 9-3 and 9-5 rely on GM technology and parts, while the 9-4X is wholly supplied by GM. Rachel Pang of PangDa tells TTELA.se
We have not discussed any changes with regard to ownership structure. We are concentrated on the GM issue… It’s about more commercial terms. We want to meet them and have asked for a meeting. First we must give them time to review our proposal. We are waiting for GM’s response and then we will of course respect it.
Of course, our understanding is that “the GM issue” is the same as the ownership structure issue… and keep in mind, PangDa and Youngman are looking for a meeting, not an agreement from GM. Which means this could drag on a while… and wouldn’t you know it, it’s time for Saab to pay salaries again.
Victor Muller, who TTELA says “has increasingly fallen into the background” of negotiations, agrees that it could be a while, noting
GM will first need to digest the information gained from Saab. It is up to Youngman and Pang Da which they want to conduct the negotiations with GM
And while PangDa/Youngman are waiting to hear back from the RenCen, they’ve got to keep the cash flowing. Apparently Youngman injected some $3m into Saab this week, and PangDa could help out with wages, which must be paid at the end of this week. Which raises an interesting question: why are PangDa and Youngman continuing to inject cash into a company they may never be able to own? Surely not because GM has sent promising signals, as its last message was
We have not changed our point of view. We are not negotiating with the Chinese since our contracts are with Saab
When asked about this puzzling state of affairs, Rachel Pang gave an answer that definitely gains something in the Google Translation
TT: Why do you continue to invest in Saab when you do not know if you can buy the company?
– A good question. I do not know what I should be on it at the moment, says Rachel Pang. (Original: En bra fråga. Jag vet inte vad jag ska vara på den i nuläget, säger Rachel Pang.)
I’m sure Ms Pang’s answer must have been more reasonable than this appears, but then, every time I dig back into the Saab story, I tend to not know what I should be on at that moment. A stiff drink? Painkillers? Some kind of exotic hallucinogen, synthesized from the pancreas of Amazonian salamanders? What could possibly make me understand the point of all this burning capital? At this point, I’m almost considering tucking into the barbiturate overdose-in-applesauce that Guy Lofalk is keeping warm for Saab. This story is a killer.