Comments on: Saab comments on recent media

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 19 Aug 2011 07:29:00 +0000

They haven’t printed corrections earlier so why should they start now?

By: eggsngrits

eggsngrits — Fri, 19 Aug 2011 02:35:00 +0000

True that.

By: eggsngrits

eggsngrits — Fri, 19 Aug 2011 02:33:00 +0000

News media sell advertising these days, and they are paid less and less to do it. Sometimes these folks get fed up and lash out or they are told to write something sensational to grab a few more readers that day. I trust them less and less each day.

By: Steven Wade

Steven Wade — Thu, 18 Aug 2011 21:57:00 +0000

I understand, Curt, and I agree the timing doesn’t look good on the surface. The press didn’t make a big deal out of it back in May when it happened, but as you’ve seen, they’ve chosen a more vulnerable time and a sensational statistic to bring the story to light now.

Nothing we can do but put the corrections out there and then keep working.

By: Curt Sehon

Curt Sehon — Thu, 18 Aug 2011 20:55:00 +0000

SWADE, I certainly wasn’t challenging the rationale for giving the raises. And I also understand that the AGM was a requirement as well as the approval of the stakeholders. All I’m saying is that the perception of the timing of the raises is what’s important. With Saab production at a standstill at that time, it just appears to the press and now that readers that the supervisory board was greedy. I’m wondering if this was considered when the raises were voted for. SWAN had to know that the press would be salivating at the prospect of reporting the news of the raises. I personally have no issues with the decision. I’m just saying that the perception of impropriety is hurting Saab.

By: Josh Cline

Josh Cline — Thu, 18 Aug 2011 20:36:00 +0000

Well the silver lining is “IT AIN’T OVER UNTIL IT’S OVER”!

By: Steven Wade

Steven Wade — Thu, 18 Aug 2011 18:11:00 +0000

It is indeed. The press were wrong with this issue and they might come out and print corrections of some sort, but the damage has been done and there’s seemingly no downside for them anyway.

By: Steven Wade

Steven Wade — Thu, 18 Aug 2011 18:09:00 +0000

I don’t think he did his reputation any favours with that article. I’ve met the guy once and he’s OK, but that article, the viscousness of it, was very disappointing. I hope he’s happy with it.

By: Steven Wade

Steven Wade — Thu, 18 Aug 2011 17:59:00 +0000

Correctamundo on your interpretation at the beginning. As you know, I don’t like simpler terms ’cause it’s never simple

By: Steven Wade

Steven Wade — Thu, 18 Aug 2011 17:58:00 +0000

Curt, it’s my understanding that a decision like that can only be taken at an AGM with the approval of shareholders, which is what happened. The timing of the AGM may have been unfortunate, but it’s usually set well in advance, and I can’t see how Mr Hugenholtz would have stayed for another 12 months at 15K per year (which has its own special irony as he’s making efforts to govern a company that’s paying it’s workers when a number of them aren’t working).