glanbia mik supply aggrement

Greengrass1

Came in post here today. Are you signing. Don't think we are.

freedominacup

Not voting cause not decided here yet. You are signing away an asset with no recompense. The length of the contract is my bugbear. A year or two no problem but the current set up ......

I'm sending my solicitor a copy and the milk managers phone number so we'll see what questions he has about it.

frazzledhome

NOT SIGNING

Greengrass1 wrote: »

Came in post here today. Are you signing. Don't think we are.

Left home before post came. What's so bad?

BTW can't vote till I read

Greengrass1

frazzledhome wrote: »

Left home before post came. What's so bad?

BTW can't vote till I read

Father was reading it when I was eating dinner so didn't get to read it as I was heading off.
He always said from day 1 he wasn't signing.
Why should we?
If we do they can do what ever they want

castletrader

Glanbia must be having a laugh with all those extra penalties and money robbing cuts . They are getting worse every year . No one should sign this .they are taking us for right mugs .

jaymla627

After reading over i certainly have no intention of signing it, their isn't one incentive throughout the whole document into the future that benefits the farmer signing it while the downsides are massive, your basically at the mercy of the board of glanbia.
The fact they only have to give a months notice to suppliers re changing their milk quality standards is quiet worrying too and i could see them down the line implementing crazy fines for high scc suppliers especially with Bellview needing sub 200 k milk.

freedominacup

jaymla627 wrote: »

After reading over i certainly have no intention of signing it, their isn't one incentive throughout the whole document into the future that benefits the farmer signing it while the downsides are massive, your basically at the mercy of the board of glanbia.
The fact they only have to give a months notice to suppliers re changing their milk quality standards is quiet worrying too and i could see them down the line implementing crazy fines for high scc suppliers especially with Bellview needing sub 200 k milk.

I have no problem with high standards the higher the better leaves us less exposed to lowest cost producers elsewhere, where standards not as high.

mahoney_j

freedominacup wrote: »

I have no problem with high standards the higher the better leaves us less exposed to lowest cost producers elsewhere, where standards not as high.

+1

milkprofit

My legal man said it would be crazy to sign it

mahoney_j

I'm reading this with interest as I am growing disgruntled with my coop(Arrabawn).lots of lads here have attended meetings and signalled intent to leave and move to Glanbia,Kerry,dairygold and aurivo .glanbia dosnt appeal to me for onecreason its a plc with a share price and share holders to look after before john farmer..

whitebriar

I actually expect a text from Glanbia in July sometime thanking the overwhelming majority for taking part...followed of course by a letter from Mr H to tell us how wonderful we all are... :rolleyes:

As for low cell counts,I've no problem with that at all either...as long as the profits,from defeating the higher cell count competition in the marketplace,are passed back to the farmer.
I have my doubts.

jaymla627

whitebriar wrote: »

I actually expect a text from Glanbia in July sometime thanking the overwhelming majority for taking part...followed of course by a letter from Mr H to tell us how wonderful we all are... :rolleyes:

As for low cell counts,I've no problem with that at all either...as long as the profits,from defeating the higher cell count competition in the marketplace,are passed back to the farmer.
I have my doubts.

This exact issue was raised at the meeting i attended in Portlaoise, the board was asked are you going to a pay bonus for sub 200k scc milk the answer was no, with the reply being its what the market requires so you basically have to meet these standards, very short-sighted in my mind not to be rewarding guys for producing the top quality product they require/need.

RightTurnClyde

Centenary supply Glanbia. Our standard milk prices are generally the same as Glanbia, but we only get the standard milk price for sub 200k SCC milk. Anything over 200 there are deductions. I can't remember the figures, but it does start getting painfull once you go over 350 or 400. There are no bonuses for 200k. Always felt, if there are going to be deductions, there should be bonuses.

Brown Podzol

milkprofit wrote: »

My legal man said it would be crazy to sign it

If it follows DG, the annual bonus/13th payment will only be made to contracted suppliers. Forced suppliers to sign the DG contract against legal advice.

RightTurnClyde

Not a Glanbia supplier and know nothing about the contracts, but just something I've be wondering about.
If you sign a contract to supply X amount of milk for a certain amount of years, what happens if the milk price drops to a very low price ( for whatever reason), and you decide to reduce production to cut costs. Can you do this. Is there a price by which the contract becomes null and void.?
Just wondering

whitebriar

jaymla627 wrote: »

This exact issue was raised at the meeting i attended in Portlaoise, the board was asked are you going to a pay bonus for sub 200k scc milk the answer was no, with the reply being its what the market requires so you basically have to meet these standards, very short-sighted in my mind not to be rewarding guys for producing the top quality product they require/need.

That question was phrased wrong.
It should have been a demand actually.
Low cell counts get Glanbia a higher return ,then the supplier must get all of that extra return.
It is the farmer that has the extra cost of producing the sub 200k milk not the dairy.

frazzledhome

NOT SIGNING

RightTurnClyde wrote: »

Centenary supply Glanbia. Our standard milk prices are generally the same as Glanbia, but we only get the standard milk price for sub 200k SCC milk. Anything over 200 there are deductions. I can't remember the figures, but it does start getting painfull once you go over 350 or 400. There are no bonuses for 200k. Always felt, if there are going to be deductions, there should be bonuses.

Are ye deducted at .>200k? No deductions in Glanbia till 325k

milkprofit

RightTurnClyde wrote: »

Not a Glanbia supplier and know nothing about the contracts, but just something I've be wondering about.
If you sign a contract to supply X amount of milk for a certain amount of years, what happens if the milk price drops to a very low price ( for whatever reason), and you decide to reduce production to cut costs. Can you do this. Is there a price by which the contract becomes null and void.?
Just wondering

U have to supply regardless of price or profit

RightTurnClyde

frazzledhome wrote: »

Are ye deducted at .>200k? No deductions in Glanbia till 325k

Ya, I can't remember the figures, but I think it's something like 0.5c per 50 over 200. As I said not 100% sure on level of penalty, but yes we are penalised.

RightTurnClyde

milkprofit wrote: »

U have to supply regardless of price or profit

Ouch. If you take a year like 09 and a farmer wants to cut output or sell a bunch of cows to reduce input, your fu€Ked.
Have a situation of supply regardless kind of goes against normal marketing rules. Would it not be better to have a system by which if milk price goes under say 25c you can reduce output by 20% and if price goes over 40% you can increase supply by 20%. Would that not work well for both coop and farmer.?

Viewtodiefor

RightTurnClyde wrote: »

Ouch. If you take a year like 09 and a farmer wants to cut output or sell a bunch of cows to reduce input, your fu€Ked.
Have a situation of supply regardless kind of goes against normal marketing rules. Would it not be better to have a system by which if milk price goes under say 25c you can reduce output by 20% and if price goes over 40% you can increase supply by 20%. Would that not work well for both coop and farmer.?

I think you are allowed to reduce production as long as you are sending in milk. Anyone want to correct me on this?

farmersfriend

NOT SIGNING

Viewtodiefor wrote: »

I think you are allowed to reduce production as long as you are sending in milk. Anyone want to correct me on this?

.+1

Milked out

Not in glanbia so dunno what yere contract is, but in dg if price goes below 27 cent/litre the revolving fund of .5c/l is stopped. Also they have force majeure situations for over/ under supply so I'd asssume it is up to your board to insure that they suit the farmer at times of adverse weather, poor milk price, herd restriction etc.

atlantic mist

Dont really have an issue with contracts, think if they had paid a leading price for raw ingredients as the leading coop there wouldnt be a need for the at all.
Is GII setting the standard for scc across Europe?
If we are setting standards why are we not being rewarded, access to markets is underpinned by our grass based system so adding lower scc gives GII competitive advantage an access to all world markets.
Can we set standard for price too?
Its the raw ingredient from us suppliers that make the company have this competitive advantage, but we are paid the same(middle of table in european price leagues) as all of our foreign rival companies.
GII are not paying for lactose(over five year contract whos to say european standards incorporating lactose payments).
Makes much more sense to reward high quality producers im my opinion, (thats how to keep lads producing, not telling them about the expansion plans, which i think they forgot we paid for 60% of the expansion cause the glanbia board wouldnt as it was to low margin business)
We are currently also paying for the processing of our milk all they have to do is sell it!!!
Hope to see economies of scale reached with belview seen as we would have bulk tanks travelling across the country might reduce our processing cost some bit, seen as we are now the largest coop our processing cost should be close to that of a small organisation

mf240

Well anybody sigh their prenup and send it in?

Any issues with it now that yeve had time to digest it?

Im still going through it. Undecided as yet.

frazzledhome

NOT SIGNING

Have you all received this document?

I've seen nothing yet, maybe they don't want my milk

Greengrass1

Only read parts of it yet. You would really want to read it a dozen times. Still dontbthink we should sign it. Glanbia are scared of competition and that's the main idea behind this.
Good example of what happened when stratjroy cane to Wexford

knockmulliner

Little in this contract that is not the case at the moment, totally at the mercy of the company as it is, but can leave on three months notice, this changes to FIVE YEARS[
if you don't sign will you get seasonal bonuses. Certainly no fixed price, but that has not favoured the farmer so far and I wouldn't miss it.] The boys in Omagh are looking more attractive daily.

mf240

No seasonality if you dont sign.

Im struggling with it to be honest. Paragraph 2.2 is a bit worrying

jaymla627

:eek:

mf240 wrote: »

No seasonality if you dont sign.

Im struggling with it to be honest. Paragraph 2.2 is a bit worrying

The no seasonality isn't really a big enough incentive to sign given the fact we are heading towards a very significant super-levy barring a repeat of 2012 weather-wise, a lot of herds will be dry come november so its a non-issue for 90% of lads

mf240

I think it applies to any seasonality schemes after 2015 not this years one.

Will check it out tonight and confirm.

slippy wicket

NOT SIGNING

mf240 wrote: »

No seasonality if you dont sign.

Im struggling with it to be honest. Paragraph 2.2 is a bit worrying

Sure how is 2.2 any different to things as they stand.

Don't know why Glanbia had the meetings about this 2 months ago. Our one was taken over by the loons shouting and roaring , and I'd say nobody learnt anything.

Greengrass1

Would it be better to have meetings now so questions could be asked now that contracts are here

slippy wicket

NOT SIGNING

Greengrass1 wrote: »

Would it be better to have meetings now so questions could be asked now that contracts are here

I suppose it depends who you're asking.

mf240

slippy wicket wrote: »

Sure how is 2.2 any different to things as they stand.

Am the fact that you committ to supply all your milk for five years is the difference.

Don't know why Glanbia had the meetings about this 2 months ago. Our one was taken over by the loons shouting and roaring , and I'd say nobody learnt anything.

I agrees houting and roaring is annoying and its usually the least articulate people that engage in it.

I can see the need for contracts I just want to be happy before I sign.

slippy wicket

NOT SIGNING

mf240 wrote: »

I agrees houting and roaring is annoying and its usually the least articulate people that engage in it.

I can see the need for contracts I just want to be happy before I sign.

I agree totally with that, none of us want to be ridden unless it's in a good way.

Conmaicne Mara

mf240 wrote: »

I agrees houting and roaring is annoying and its usually the least articulate people that engage in it.

Often the issue with the shouting and roaring is the people who are representing the shouters and roarers, or the people who have organised the meeting haven't done sufficient work in getting the necessary information across. When people know the facts there'll be more questions, when they're operating on rumours, it's shouting and roaring.

frazzledhome

NOT SIGNING

milkprofit wrote: »

My legal man said it would be crazy to sign it

What did he outline to you as unacceptable?

frazzledhome

NOT SIGNING

Came in the post this am. I don't see any thing to stop me signing

Greengrass1

frazzledhome wrote: »

Came in the post this am. I don't see any thing to stop me signing

I really think they should be giving bonuses for milk quality. If they want to make more milk powder and brand us as producing good milk they need to make incentives for farmers to stride for low SCC/TBC/thermoduric milk

slippy wicket

NOT SIGNING

Greengrass1 wrote: »

I really think they should be giving bonuses for milk quality. If they want to make more milk powder and brand us as producing good milk they need to make incentives for farmers to stride for low SCC/TBC/thermoduric milk

Agree totally with that. If you've made the effort to get scc down below 100 then you should get a bit of a premium compared to stuff that's 200-300.

freedominacup

frazzledhome wrote: »

Came in the post this am. I don't see any thing to stop me signing

It arrived to my solicitor around the same time. He couldn't see how he could recommend I sign it at first glance other than the fact that I had no other option currently with regard to who would process my milk. I intend to post his reply/opinion here once he comes back to me in writing. I was sending him down a lease agreement to review anyway so I just stuck the msa in with it.

keep going

Whats yhe difference between calling it a bonus or a deduction, its the top figure that counts.

knockmulliner

If the top figure was good enough there would be no need for a contract to ensure supply. Indeed if GII were confident they could compete in the future would we have been presented with a "tied hand and foot" contract like this?

frazzledhome

NOT SIGNING

knockmulliner wrote: »

If the top figure was good enough there would be no need for a contract to ensure supply. Indeed if GII were confident they could compete in the future would we have been presented with a "tied hand and foot" contract like this?

I don't think it really changes the relationship we have already. If increased capacity is being provided I think it's reasonable to get commitment. What circumstance could you foresee that would make you want to change company?

On paying a bonus for quality I think the system at the moment does that with penalties for not reaching standards.

knockmulliner

frazzledhome wrote: »

I don't think it really changes the relationship we have already. If increased capacity is being provided I think it's reasonable to get commitment. What circumstance could you foresee that would make you want to change company?

On paying a bonus for quality I think the system at the moment does that with penalties for not reaching standards.

I am quite happy with the contract i have at the moment, and have demonstrated comittment in the past and ongoing with capital investment. I would like to have the option to change if the price i was getting for my product was below that paid by well managed competitive processor.

frazzledhome

NOT SIGNING

knockmulliner wrote: »

I am quite happy with the contract i have at the moment, and have demonstrated comittment in the past and ongoing with capital investment. I would like to have the option to change if the price i was getting for my product was below that paid by well managed competitive processor.

That's a very reasonable view. Do you see there being such a difference between processors? While price is important to me a company that's in it for the long haul and one that I'm familiar with would weigh heavy in my view

BTW, did you sign up to Fixed scheme. I got a call yesterday and declined. My view is to salt away as much as possible while price is good and manage volatility within my own business.

knockmulliner

frazzledhome wrote: »

That's a very reasonable view. Do you see there being such a difference between processors? While price is important to me a company that's in it for the long haul and one that I'm familiar with would weigh heavy in my view

BTW, did you sign up to Fixed scheme. I got a call yesterday and declined. My view is to salt away as much as possible while price is good and manage volatility within my own business.

Loyalty, the people you know ect of course would have a bearing on any business choices to be made. I wouldnt sign a lease for five years without a rent figure and review mechanism, wheather I was selling or buying even with my very best friend, I might not be dealing with the same person in a years time, same applies here.

No I didnt lock in did in the past and lost as a result.

atlantic mist

frazzledhome wrote: »

I don't think it really changes the relationship we have already. If increased capacity is being provided I think it's reasonable to get commitment. What circumstance could you foresee that would make you want to change company?

On paying a bonus for quality I think the system at the moment does that with penalties for not reaching standards.

We as a supplier want to be paid the highest price for goods produced(nothing wrong with that), i would imagine this is why some wish to change company(better offer provided, why can GII not provide matching/better offers may be questioned), many of us buy from other merchants not just coop merchants (in our case we found over the past number of years moving away from our coop merchants put more money in our pockets, even though we are shareholders in coop, funny isn't it we own it so they charge us more for our loyalty than there competitors and come out with bonus a year or two later instead of getting price right at the time).

Did we not pay for extra capacity ourselves with our coop investment, think a written commitment would be valid if the company paid for expansion, maybe company now worried that the people who got vote through for purchase of GII are not all actually active milk suppliers so how to fill capacity is a company worry, European milk contracts were issued for milk producers post quota system is it not reasonable to use these contracts why do we need our own special contract drawn? This was brought up at meeting i was at and no adequate response came from management team other than to move on.

Little confused penalties for not reaching standard, that is a penalty not a bonus, a bonus is paid on top of normal price for achieving above the standard

frazzledhome

NOT SIGNING

One way to secure price is FPS. Have many signed up?

farmersfriend

NOT SIGNING

frazzledhome wrote: »

One way to secure price is FPS. Have many signed up?

Seriously considering it at the minute.