1979-1993 & 94 Conv [Subscribe to Daily Digest] |
 | [Main C900 Bulletin Board | BBFAQ |
Prev by Date | Next by Date | Post Followup ]
Member Login / Signup - Members see fewer ads. - Latest Member Gallery Photos
I think I just figured something out, re:GM Posted by LIFETIMEOFSAABS [Email]  (#2) [Profile/Gallery]
(more from LIFETIMEOFSAABS) on Sun, 1 Jan 2012 17:59:21
Members do not see ads below this line. - Help Keep This Site Online - Signup
|
Not that it much matters at this point, but when GM squashed the sale of Saab due to the transfer of proprietary technology to the Chinese, I began to wonder if the reasons were more than what they appeared on the surface.
I mean, first off, they sold a license to use the technology to Saab, which in some small way could be construed as a competitive sale. No biggie.
That said, if Saab transferred the technology as part of its sale, then quite honestly, GM could potentially lose a HUGE negotiation opportunity for ITSELF in developing manufacturing and sales relationships in the Chinese market.
Put it this way, GM effectively can sell its "product" twice. Once, through license to Saab when it was purchased by Spyker, and again as part of a manufacturing relationship it itself established directly with one of the Chinese-owned manufacturers in a bid to sell its vehicles into a multi-billion dollar and growing market.
If GM let Saab be purchased along with the technology licenses then GM would lose this opportunity or the technology would have transferred to a "partner" that would not have opened the door to GM.
I may be the last person to think of this, but it hit me like a ton of bricks earlier today. For sure there are a lot of players that are a whole lot smarter than me to anticipate this scenario, but then GM probably figured that SAAB wouldn't survive on its own with the restrictions and conditions it put in place at the time of its sale to Spyker and they would then reap twice the benefit. In effect killing two birds with one stone, the pass off Saab, which fails and they don't take direct blame over shuttering the brand. Then priming the appetite of the Chinese with technology that they then sell to the highest bidder in their initiatives to penetrate the Chinese domestic market.
, Sun, 1 Jan 2012 17:59:21 <-- Viewing This Message, Mon, 2 Jan 2012 11:54:00, Mon, 2 Jan 2012 10:11:55
No Site Registration is Required to Post - Site Membership is optional (Member Features List), but helps to keep the site online
for all Saabers. If the site helps you, please consider helping the site by becoming a member.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
