Milk Price- Please read Mod note in post #1

whelan2

jaymla627 wrote: »

Is it a well kept secret our something, noting on the iscma website about it taking place, you'd imagen it would of been flagged/advertised alot better then a add in donedeal on a issue that affects over a 1000 dairy farmers

Think it was put up last night. Why would it be removed?

RightTurnClyde

jaymla627 wrote: »

Is it a well kept secret our something, noting on the iscma website about it taking place, you'd imagen it would of been flagged/advertised alot better then a add in donedeal on a issue that affects over a 1000 dairy farmers

The meeting is on the icmsa website, but not the topic. Possibly an individual trying to set the agenda for the meeting

kowtow

jaymla627 wrote: »

Is it a well kept secret our something, noting on the iscma website about it taking place, you'd imagen it would of been flagged/advertised alot better then a add in donedeal on a issue that affects over a 1000 dairy farmers

When is it?

With the cows dried off and the evenings drawing in I feel a bit of National Travel coming on....

jaymla627

kowtow wrote: »

When is it?

With the cows dried off and the evenings drawing in I feel a bit of National Travel coming on....

In relation to glanbia making non - shared up suppliers buy shares in order to avail of top-ups, on milk and legality concerning it

RightTurnClyde

whelan2 wrote: »

This might be of interest to some people http://www.donedeal.ie/dairycattle-for-sale/for-sale-icmsa-re-glanbia-co-op-shares/10501789?offset=12

More of the same
http://www.donedeal.ie/dairycattle-for-sale/selling-my-soul-to-the-devil/10517669
Its up an hour, interesting to see how long till it's taken down

kowtow

jaymla627 wrote: »

In relation to glanbia making non - shared up suppliers buy shares in order to avail of top-ups, on milk and legality concerning it

Would need to look hard at the constitutional documents of the co-op but my guess is that they are well covered.. unless

1. top-ups are in some way being funded from the actual profits made on non-shared up suppliers milk (last year or this) AND 2. the same suppliers received representations (oral or written) that not they would not be disadvantaged by not being shared-up. It would be helpful if they (had) agreed to supply on the basis of those representations.

And you'd need to be able to introduce solid evidence as to (2.)

Could be wrong but that's where I'd be looking.

Edit: In other words if shared up members are receiving a top-up funded by only their own milk, and you have to share up to join in, you have a bit of a thin case whatever was said to you. However - if it's devilment you are after and you have balls of steel - stop looking at where the top-up funds themselves come from and start looking at the administration costs of them. The top-ups might come from the old milk but the administration of the top ups is likely paid for in the year it takes place by everyone old and new, shared up or not. They always forget the ancillary costs.

jaymla627

kowtow wrote: »

Would need to look hard at the constitutional documents of the co-op but my guess is that they are well covered.. unless

1. top-ups are in some way being funded from the actual profits made on non-shared up suppliers milk (last year or this) AND 2. the same suppliers received representations (oral or written) that not they would not be disadvantaged by not being shared-up. It would be helpful if they (had) agreed to supply on the basis of those representations.

And you'd need to be able to introduce solid evidence as to (2.)

Could be wrong but that's where I'd be looking.

If you do a bit of research on number two you'll see various articles on glanbia where they where beating the drum about not requiring new entrants our new suppliers about needing to share - up if they signed up to them....
The most striking piece is listed above when they originally done a u-turn from the original 2.88 a share they quoted firstly to then upping it to a fiver, supply glanbia here and applied for shares but would be sending my milk elsewhere if I could but have no other options as they have a gentleman's agreement with the other co-op in the area about not taking each others suppliers

kowtow

jaymla627 wrote: »

If you do a bit of research on number two you'll see various articles on glanbia where they where beating the drum about not requiring new entrants our new suppliers about needing to share - up if they signed up to them....

Sure.

But from what little I know I have seen the top-up fund described in terms of a separate fund. Was that fund announced and promised to new suppliers along with the "you don't have to share up" line? If not, at first blush, they are simply distributing some of the profits of the shared up (let's call them the "existing" suppliers) amongst the existing suppliers and the newly shared up. It's perhaps noteworthy that their top-up is explicit rather than just stuffed into the milk price, perhaps because of this very issue.

If - of course - the new supplier is directly contributing to the top-up fund (and is effectively unable to access it without shares which he wasn't told he would have to buy) then it might be a different story. Is that the case?

Glanbia et. al. are I would think fairly well advised, and unfair as it may seem on the face of it, if you want to get anywhere you'll have to be very objective and clinical if you want anything other than a few done deal ads and a room full of shouty people.

freedominacup

kowtow wrote: »

Would need to look hard at the constitutional documents of the co-op but my guess is that they are well covered.. unless

1. top-ups are in some way being funded from the actual profits made on non-shared up suppliers milk (last year or this) AND 2. the same suppliers received representations (oral or written) that not they would not be disadvantaged by not being shared-up. It would be helpful if they (had) agreed to supply on the basis of those representations.

And you'd need to be able to introduce solid evidence as to (2.)

Could be wrong but that's where I'd be looking.

Edit: In other words if shared up members are receiving a top-up funded by only their own milk, and you have to share up to join in, you have a bit of a thin case whatever was said to you. However - if it's devilment you are after and you have balls of steel - stop looking at where the top-up funds themselves come from and start looking at the administration costs of them. The top-ups might come from the old milk but the administration of the top ups is likely paid for in the year it takes place by everyone old and new, shared up or not. They always forget the ancillary costs.

I think the only weakness in the co-op position is the fact that most suppliers got their shares at face value. Starting at probably a couple of shillings way back when, through the old pound share to the current face value of two euro. They had a right to buy at this price by virtue of being suppliers. Now new\undershared suppliers are being forced to buy on a grey market and in effect funding pensions of inheritors/dry suppliers. Co-op shares were never intended to be traded or used in this manner. If the new supplers must share up which I fundamentally agree with they should be entitled to buy their share up at the nominal value. Any shares wanted from an investment stand point can be bought by any shareholder on the aforementioned grey market.

kowtow

freedominacup wrote: »

I think the only weakness in the co-op position is the fact that most suppliers got their shares at face value. Starting at probably a couple of shillings way back when, through the old pound share to the current face value of two euro. They had a right to buy at this price by virtue of being suppliers. Now new\undershared suppliers are being forced to buy on a grey market and in effect funding pensions of inheritors/dry suppliers. Co-op shares were never intended to be traded or used in this manner. If the new supplers must share up which I fundamentally agree with they should be entitled to buy their share up at the nominal value. Any shares wanted from an investment stand point can be bought by any shareholder on the aforementioned grey market.

old suppliers got nominal value shares because the balance sheet of the co-op was only of nominal value presumably - if you give new suppliers the same price aren't you robbing the old supplier of all the investment which came out of his milk cheque?

Or perhaps everyone's already been paid many times over for that with the plc and all and it's time for a clean sheet?

jaymla627

kowtow wrote: »

Sure.

But from what little I know I have seen the top-up fund described in terms of a separate fund. Was that fund announced and promised to new suppliers along with the "you don't have to share up" line? If not, at first blush, they are simply distributing some of the profits of the shared up (let's call them the "existing" suppliers) amongst the existing suppliers and the newly shared up. It's perhaps noteworthy that their top-up is explicit rather than just stuffed into the milk price, perhaps because of this very issue.

If - of course - the new supplier is directly contributing to the top-up fund (and is effectively unable to access it without shares which he wasn't told he would have to buy) then it might be a different story. Is that the case?

Glanbia et. al. are I would think fairly well advised, and unfair as it may seem on the face of it, if you want to get anywhere you'll have to be very objective and clinical if you want anything other than a few done deal ads and a room full of shouty people.

Their's cases where suppliers have been supplying milk to glanbia for the past 15 years plus that have to turn around and buy shares.
I wouldn't be so sure given the ludicrous paragraph in their milk supply agreement that stipulates if the supplier who signed the agreement exists milk but transfers the farm to a family member said family member must continue supplying milk to glanbia for the length of contract, as far as I'm aware no said person can sign away on a decision like that without the permission/signature of person who is taking over farm...
Given that if a individual supplier took a action in the courts against glanbia in relation to this and lost his legal bills alone would mean he would be bankrupted I am pretty sure glanbia are working of the assumption that no one is brave/financed well enough to bring them through the courts

kevthegaff

Know a guy whos sending in a lot of milk, hes buying at 5e a share i think. Hes saying that at the next spin out he can sell these shares at 18euros(share value at time) is this correct?

freedominacup

kevthegaff wrote: »

Know a guy whos sending in a lot of milk, hes buying at 5e a share i think. Hes saying that at the next spin out he can sell these shares at 18euros(share value at time) is this correct?

No but on a similar spinout to the last one he'd come close to getting his money back and still have his co-op shares after selling the spun out plc shares.

kowtow

jaymla627 wrote: »

Given that if a individual supplier took a action in the courts against glanbia in relation to this and lost his legal bills alone would mean he would be bankrupted I am pretty sure glanbia are working of the assumption that no one is brave/financed well enough to bring them through the courts

He wouldn't need to take them to court unless the new co-op wouldn't take his milk (perhaps the real issue). It would be for them to take him to court and it's a pretty hard obligation to enforce.

If stuck like this, by the way, the solution would be to incorporate a farming company for a couple of years and lease the cows to them.

You can always keep an old high-cell count house cow for your own and get the Glanbia lorry to come and collect her milk every other day.


Edit: as always take professional advice before trying this

freedominacup

kowtow wrote: »

old suppliers got nominal value shares because the balance sheet of the co-op was only of nominal value presumably - if you give new suppliers the same price aren't you robbing the old supplier of all the investment which came out of his milk cheque?

Or perhaps everyone's already been paid many times over for that with the plc and all and it's time for a clean sheet?

No the pound shares certainly in Waterford co-op were readily available when the co-op balance sheet was made up of a seventy percent plus shareholding of a company with a market cap north of £100 million. They were used more than once if memory serves to avoid paying back convertible loan stock. Rather than pay cash shares were offered instead.

kowtow

freedominacup wrote: »

Rather than pay cash shares were offered instead.

Convertible at face value?

Jeez.

freedominacup

kowtow wrote: »

Convertible at face value?

Jeez.

Fcuk knows kowtow. I was extremely green about this stuff then but to paraphrase yourself, I think, I would certainly have had a view about who the fcukee was on the deal.

kevthegaff

So the new entrants are getting the best desl once they share up, top up existing members are paying from last years cookie jar, how do existing members feel?

kevthegaff

Also is everything so complex as to fool the supplier:-)

frazzledhome

Group of German farmers here last week getting 30c/litre for milk that's max price

Funny thing is we got more for last months milk than they did

whelan2

RightTurnClyde wrote: »

More of the same
http://www.donedeal.ie/dairycattle-for-sale/selling-my-soul-to-the-devil/10517669
Its up an hour, interesting to see how long till it's taken down

another one http://www.donedeal.ie/dairycattle-for-sale/glanbia-shares-amp-mpa/10517172?offset=13

kowtow

whelan2 wrote: »

another one http://www.donedeal.ie/dairycattle-for-sale/glanbia-shares-amp-mpa/10517172?offset=13

I think this guy has the wrong end of the stick.

If board members are selling PLC shares it's surely it's because they are frightened of the keen deals the co-op keeps driving with them.

atlantic mist

whens the next spin out going to come? below majority shareholder is there going to be the same push to spin out the shares? it will only be 1-2% from now on id imagine, the shares spun out were the investment of 40/50 years and well earned by those who got it probable two generations in a lot of cases

the 5 euro a share, i havent seen how exactly they came up with that figure based on % in plc and value on gii, anyone know, i will have to get shares in order to qualify for top ups when do we need to have them by?

i dont mind buying into the coop you should be encouraged into org like the coop and not the method chosen

its a way for coop shareholders to cash out at the highest value on record comparable to the current price of plc share,

the exchange on coop to plc was 3:1 previously, what will it be in future as the coop investment includes gii and additional shareholders from wexford 4or5?

whelan2

alot of cotton wool in this article http://www.agriland.ie/farming-news/co-ops-are-showing-leadership-and-responsibility-on-milk-prices/?utm_content=buffer11111&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

frazzledhome

whelan2 wrote: »

alot of cotton wool in this article http://www.agriland.ie/farming-news/co-ops-are-showing-leadership-and-responsibility-on-milk-prices/?utm_content=buffer11111&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

Only bit of "cotton wool" is him predicting a price rise in 2016, backs up with no reasons why.

His point about Coops subbing price is correct and I've been saying it since April and getting lambasted for it. Simple fact all coops are subbing price and will need to continue to do so till price rises or money runs out.

Dawggone

frazzledhome wrote: »

Only bit of "cotton wool" is him predicting a price rise in 2016, backs up with no reasons why.

His point about Coops subbing price is correct and I've been saying it since April and getting lambasted for it. Simple fact all coops are subbing price and will need to continue to do so till price rises or money runs out.

Electioneering...

Price rise next summer kinda indicates spring election?

RightTurnClyde

frazzledhome wrote: »

Only bit of "cotton wool" is him predicting a price rise in 2016, backs up with no reasons why.

His point about Coops subbing price is correct and I've been saying it since April and getting lambasted for it. Simple fact all coops are subbing price and will need to continue to do so till price rises or money runs out.

It's an awful pity the geniuses in the IFA, ICMSA, IFJ, Farming Independent, Agriland, RTE et al don't ask Coveney 1 simple question..."Why"

WheatenBriar

frazzledhome wrote: »

Only bit of "cotton wool" is him predicting a price rise in 2016, backs up with no reasons why.

His point about Coops subbing price is correct and I've been saying it since April and getting lambasted for it. Simple fact all coops are subbing price and will need to continue to do so till price rises or money runs out.

Not all coop's are subbing base price from their margin as you know
At least one of them is subbing base price from the farmers own money whilst protecting their own margin

frazzledhome

WheatenBriar wrote: »

Not all coop's are subbing base price from their margin as you know
At least one of them is subbing base price from the farmers own money whilst protecting their own margin

If you think coops aren't subbing price, your not living in the real world. Coops will sub price to the tune of €100m this year. Where do you think it's coming from?

Name coops not subbing

Edit, your correct didn't read your post properly. The fact remains that it's being subbed

kowtow

frazzledhome wrote: »

Group of German farmers here last week getting 30c/litre for milk that's max price

Funny thing is we got more for last months milk than they did

Actually we've been getting more for a long time .. since about 2006 on balance. See my specially doctored chart below

1. If 2006 to today is a commodity anomaly, and oil etc. returns to a long term norm, we need to buckle down, stick to grazing only, prepare for an average milk price of not much more than 25c for ever, pay very little for land, and get used to not having a wage (many people here would regard that as the definition of an Irish farmer). The Germans and others will get richer than us again because their liquid milk market props them up, and when they do overproduce it will be in our back yard (the world market).

2. On the other hand if things continue as they have since 2006 the only problem is we're not getting paid for it - so we need to grow maize, buy robots, get 12,000 litre cows, and fire up the diet feeders.

It's also remotely possible that German prices will come down to join ours in which case we need to wait for them to crash and then buy their robots and carry on as in (2) above.