Zaabelg schreef op 7 augustus 2012 15:36:
PFF Het lijkt hier wel een kiekenkot..Toch een paar bemerkingen ...
GM mag dan wel GM zijn, wat zij in Europa uitspoken is allesbehalve..
Zie enerzijds wat met Opel gebeurt (sluitingen) maar anderzijds een miljoenencontract voor sponsoring Manchester United ...
Laat Europa ook maar eens tussenkomen want :
(gevonden op Earth Blog)
Does Spyker have a case?
Absolutely. But it the GM – Spyker – Saab relationship is complicated. As SaabsUnited explains, Saab and GM had entered into a Automotive Technology License Agreement with Saab, and that agreement continued after Spyker purchased Saab from GM. Because of this agreement, Saab had access to GM’s platforms and technology, but Saab had a habit of making changes to GM’s platforms in its cars. The concern for GM with Youngman investing in Saab was that they would have access to GM’s technology. However, Youngman would not have had access to Saab’s 9-3, 9-4X, and 9-5 because of the details of the agreement. Instead, Youngman would have loaned money to Spyker allowing for the development of Saab’s Phoenix Platform and the eventual phasing out of GM’s platforms.
I believe Spyker has a strong case. The Framework Agreement did not involve GM, and even protected them from Youngman. Why did GM object? Clearly they were threatened by a Chinese company that would have certainly brought the next generation of Saab vehicles into China to compete with GM’s offerings. There are certainly two sides to every store, but this appears to be a simple case of a poor sport attempting to defeat the competition before it even had a chance. I have been very vocal about GM’s mishandling of Saab (as I expressed in this post), and I hope Spyker can prove its case. As with the Saab transfer to NEVS, I will continue to follow this story as it develops
en kakel nu maar verder..