Milk Price III

Water John · 13-07-2017 10:10am

Certainly Drinagh published in full renumeration and expenses of each Board member in their Annual Report.
In fairness, it wasn't going to make any one rich and nobody has ever raised an issue.

BTW, I think it would be a very good idea to imburse all shareholders who attend the AGM. Might improve the attendance figures. But some might not want that to happen.

Farmer Ed · 13-07-2017 10:14am

K.G. wrote: »

I can feel a whole string of misery begrudgerey and bulls##t coming today and some posters revelling in it. What a way to live your life

I have no ill feeling towards the man who stole my chainsaw. Sure more luck to him if he can get away with it. Actually no he shouldn't really have done that but I cant really say that because someone might think I was being small minded. What's the world coming to at all?

mahoney_j · 13-07-2017 10:15am

Farmer Ed wrote: »

I know that in 2013 when questioned at the AGM the wage bill for the Dairygold board of 12 was in excess of 400k I'm assuming that was before expenses and the money they were getting from sitting on other boards. How many meetings a year would a board member have and how long would they be away from home? You do know that 4 board members on the renumeration committee decide how much to pay the board? So effectively they decide themselves how much they get paid. I don't know how much the pay is for being on the renumeration committee? Also in larger Co Ops you could have dozens of companies. Being a director of nine or ten of those could also carry perks.

Hey there was a thread set up for u and your dairygold bashing /grudge ....

mahoney_j · 13-07-2017 10:17am

Water John wrote: »

Certainly Drinagh published in full renumeration and expenses of each Board member in their Annual Report.
In fairness, it wasn't going to make any one rich and nobody has ever raised an issue.

BTW, I think it would be a very good idea to imburse all shareholders who attend the AGM. Might improve the attendance figures. But some might not want that to happen.

We get our dinner at arrabawn agm ,most years there's a poor crowd at it ,when milk price is poor tho the hecklers turn up to mouth off ....

Farmer Ed · 13-07-2017 10:19am

mahoney_j wrote: »

Farmer Ed wrote: »

I know that in 2013 when questioned at the AGM the wage bill for the Dairygold board of 12 was in excess of 400k I'm assuming that was before expenses and the money they were getting from sitting on other boards. How many meetings a year would a board member have and how long would they be away from home? You do know that 4 board members on the renumeration committee decide how much to pay the board? So effectively they decide themselves how much they get paid. I don't know how much the pay is for being on the renumeration committee? Also in larger Co Ops you could have dozens of companies. Being a director of nine or ten of those could also carry perks.

Hey there was a thread set up for u and your dairygold bashing /grudge ....

OK point taken but it was just part of a general comparison of co op pay levels. You are the one who started naming co ops and trying to compare pay levels.

Farmer Ed · 13-07-2017 10:21am

mahoney_j wrote: »

Water John wrote: »

Certainly Drinagh published in full renumeration and expenses of each Board member in their Annual Report.
In fairness, it wasn't going to make any one rich and nobody has ever raised an issue.

BTW, I think it would be a very good idea to imburse all shareholders who attend the AGM. Might improve the attendance figures. But some might not want that to happen.

We get our dinner at arrabawn agm ,most years there's a poor crowd at it ,when milk price is poor tho the hecklers turn up to mouth off ....

Naturally enough people turn up for dinner when the milk price is poor. Their obviously hungry! No surprise there!

blue5000 · 13-07-2017 10:44am

Farmer Ed wrote: »

Anyone seen this yet? Haven't brought the comic in years but might reconsider if i thought some actual real journalism was being practiced? Would feel bad spending my 2.50 or what ever it costs now days if I thought all I would be reading was press releases from some company or another. Anyone made the plunge and read the article yet?

mahoney_j wrote: »

Shame on u ed ,I thought you'd have this info to hand .i know what board members in arrabawn get and a fair idea of what dairygold and glanbia get .it was outlined at last years agm I think .our board members get a small fee in comparasion

Farmer Ed wrote: »

I have a fair idea what they get alright but I'm am waiting with baited breath to see if the comic will report the full extent of all the perks and boards they sit on. You are correct that Arrabawn board members are not well paid and would be on a much higher pay scale were they on the board of larger Co Ops. Possible reason for the desire of one of them to be taken over by a larger Co Op? I guess everyone who gets on a soccer them has the ultimate dream of playing in the premier league.

K.G. wrote: »

I can feel a whole string of misery begrudgerey and bulls##t coming today and some posters revelling in it. What a way to live your life

Mod warning; Ok folks the BS stops now. Ed I suggest you go off and buy the comic for yourself and spend the rest of the day reading it. Don't post in this thread for 24 hrs.

alps · 13-07-2017 10:52am

I have no difficulty with board members being paid...They should be...The salary of many board members would barely cover expenses and work cover at home.

However I would have had concern in some coops where significant salaries and expenses were paid, and where guys became serial dependants on board salaries to make a living , and therefore the risks associated with loosing the job became significant.

This situation cannot lead to independent decision making by a board member...

yewtree · 13-07-2017 11:18am

alps wrote: »

I have no difficulty with board members being paid...They should be...The salary of many board members would barely cover expenses and work cover at home.

However I would have had concern in some coops where significant salaries and expenses were paid, and where guys became serial dependants on board salaries to make a living , and therefore the risks associated with loosing the job became significant.

This situation cannot lead to independent decision making by a board member...

Thats the balance alright, are lads that are more profitable at home more likely to make better board members as they are unlikely to need the money?
I wouldnt begrudge board members what they get, it must take up a lot of time and effect the home farm

Buford T. Justice XIX · 13-07-2017 12:30pm

alps wrote: »

I have no difficulty with board members being paid...They should be...The salary of many board members would barely cover expenses and work cover at home.

However I would have had concern in some coops where significant salaries and expenses were paid, and where guys became serial dependants on board salaries to make a living , and therefore the risks associated with loosing the job became significant.

This situation cannot lead to independent decision making by a board member...

yewtree wrote: »

Thats the balance alright, are lads that are more profitable at home more likely to make better board members as they are unlikely to need the money?
I wouldnt begrudge board members what they get, it must take up a lot of time and effect the home farm

When you join a board, any board, your responsibility changes immediately.

In whatever committee you have been elected to, your responsibility is to ensure that the farmers that elect you get the best possible price for their product, in this case, milk. You have to fight all the way to get that and if you're than elected to the Board, your primary responsibility now is the wellbeing of the company whose Board you're on.

The farmers interest is now deemed to be keeping the company healthy and profitable and milk price is a distant second to the company itself.

There can be no running with the hare and chasing with the hounds here.

whelan2 · 13-07-2017 12:51pm

Tipperary co op board members get €4917 while glanbia get €49909.......

Galwayforliam · 13-07-2017 1:18pm

Got the Journal. It's a decent analysis and found out a lot that I didn't know already. Like they detail all the coops with names of all board members, their positions, supplier numbers, milk pool and salaries.

Glanbia board members get €49,909 each, Dairygold €31,917 each etc. 4 page spread on the coops

mahoney_j · 13-07-2017 1:19pm

whelan2 wrote: »

Tipperary co op board members get €4917 while glanbia get €49909.......

Big difference alright but glanbia has plc element whereas tipp is a farmer owned coop .dose that justify the huge difference in payement ??,im no where near qualified to answer that

whelan2 · 13-07-2017 1:21pm

Galwayforliam wrote: »

Got the Journal. It's a decent analysis and found out a lot that I didn't know already. Like they detail all the coops with names of all board members, their positions, supplier numbers, milk pool and salaries.

Glanbia board members get €49,909 each, Dairygold €31,917 each etc. 4 page spread on the coops

Lacpatrick is the one with no salary

whelan2 · 13-07-2017 3:21pm

Glanbia up 1cpl

Water John · 13-07-2017 6:33pm

It may not now apply to Kerry. They seem to have separated, eventually.

But a lot of Coop Directors would want to renew acquaintance with their responsibilities.

alps · 13-07-2017 11:30pm

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

alps wrote: »

I have no difficulty with board members being paid...They should be...The salary of many board members would barely cover expenses and work cover at home.

However I would have had concern in some coops where significant salaries and expenses were paid, and where guys became serial dependants on board salaries to make a living , and therefore the risks associated with loosing the job became significant.

This situation cannot lead to independent decision making by a board member...

yewtree wrote: »

Thats the balance alright, are lads that are more profitable at home more likely to make better board members as they are unlikely to need the money?
I wouldnt begrudge board members what they get, it must take up a lot of time and effect the home farm

if you're than elected to the Board, your primary responsibility now is the wellbeing of the company whose Board you're on.

Absolutely correct..

However, that same board member should not forget the purpose as to which the coop is operating...
If that purpose is, the assembly and sale of the shareholders product, and maximising that return to the shareholder, then the responsibility of the board member is far greater then the well being of the coop....The board member cannot be left sidestep his responsibility to the shareholder.

Water John · 13-07-2017 11:44pm

As I posted above, a Coop Director aims for a balance. The Coop must be kept strong and financially healthy and not over exposed to risk.
The work of the Coop must make the maximum possible return to its member farmers. Farmers achieving together what the could not do on an individual basis.

Very few understand or are held accountable as to their role.

I am a shareholder of Cork Marts. I normally, not exclusively, sell my stock at one of our marts (it's not THEIR, it's OUR). By it having a strong business model and a good quality sale, every week. That indirectly, makes the best return, to me, the farmer. This is done, without taking excessive fees whilst keeping the Coop and its functions, solid. For example, they don't take excessive credit risk with, purchasers.

Farmer Ed · 14-07-2017 11:57am

whelan2 wrote: »

Farmer Ed wrote: »

While obviously any increase is welcome, there was talk on here of a 1.5c increase. IFA have even said 2c should be available. I wonder can more of an increase be expected for July?

Someone toldme the other day 3 cent increase was justified. 1 cpl is a long way off that. I assume all the other sheep Will follow with 1 cent

I think you hit the nail on the head with this prediction. Paddy's law of Sheeponomics alive and well when calculating milk price. I suppose what it does really highlight is the value of competition.

kowtow · 14-07-2017 12:43pm

If you took small (and sometimes therefore quite risky from a reputation & compliance point of view) public companies as a benchmark then EUR 10K - 20K per year is a starting point for non-executive directors pay - for that you would get all the experience and specific knowledge (for example of a retired Senior city lawyer or accountant) - but understandably no hands-on business value. It seems to me that's a fair comparison for most co-op board members.

These guys aren't silent placeholders - if you sent them a 200 page merger agreement or a detailed set of accounts for specific comment with a 24 hour deadline they would know what to do with it without hand-holding and would be expected to knowledgeably and confidently express opinions which usually challenge those of the full time board.

Expenses on top, although most people would take a dim view of those who made a fuss of claiming them.

Obviously the bigger the company the greater the non-exec pay but if you were paying 25K ++ you'd be paying for someones specific reputation (for a deal or money raising for example) or simply because the level of compliance knowledge and risk is very high - as with a high street retail bank or investment fund for example.

Farmer Ed · 14-07-2017 12:53pm

kowtow wrote: »

If you took small (and sometimes therefore quite risky from a reputation & compliance point of view) public companies as a benchmark then EUR 10K - 20K per year is a starting point for non-executive directors pay - for that you would get all the experience and specific knowledge (for example of a retired Senior city lawyer or accountant) - but understandably no hands-on business value. It seems to me that's a fair comparison for most co-op board members.

These guys aren't silent placeholders - if you sent them a 200 page merger agreement or a detailed set of accounts for specific comment with a 24 hour deadline they would know what to do with it without hand-holding and would be expected to knowledgeably and confidently express opinions which usually challenge those of the full time board.

Expenses on top, although most people would take a dim view of those who made a fuss of claiming them.

Obviously the bigger the company the greater the non-exec pay but if you were paying 25K ++ you'd be paying for someones specific reputation (for a deal or money raising for example) or simply because the level of compliance knowledge and risk is very high - as with a high street retail bank or investment fund for example.

Is it normal for board members in such companies to decide their own pay level? For example in at least in some of our co ops 4 board members decide their own pay and the pay of senior management. Obviously they seek the advice of an outside consultant. However I guess there would be no real incentive for a consultant not to give a pay rise as it might not do his own prospects of getting the job next any good.

kowtow · 14-07-2017 1:15pm

Farmer Ed wrote: »

Is it normal for board members in such companies to decide their own pay level? For example in at least in some of our co ops 4 board members decide their own pay and the pay of senior management. Obviously they seek the advice of an outside consultant. However I guess there would be no real incentive for a consultant not to give a pay rise as it might not do his own prospects of getting the job next any good.

Yes.

The board has to decide their own pay level, because in practice they are the only ones that can. The remuneration committee is really to protect individual directors negotiations from their colleagues and and make it look a bit more sanitary.

Outside consultants are often just a waste of shareholders funds. Since they always want the consultancy business next year and the year after (duh!) they really only supply the research and paperwork to justify proposed pay levels. They certainly don't walk in the door and say "right, so how are we going to slim your salaries down then..."

Pressure on board salaries (and many hirings and firings) in practice almost always comes from big shareholders - often pension funds etc., acting alone or in informal groups. No board is going to risk an AGM if they don't have proxies on the way in to the room, so if a couple of blocks of 3 or 4 or 5% have been on the phone and made their feelings known then they are going to act to resolve issues in advance. Since those blocks are normally pension funds anyway, the general pressure will be upwards, but they won't let things run away by comparison with other similar boards or where performance has been compromised. If there is evidence of real underperformance at a company then a ritual sacrifice is usually required just so everyone knows that everyone was on the ball - and the risk of being in the wrong place at the wrong time is one reason why working directors salaries often seem so high.

Buford T. Justice XIX · 14-07-2017 1:30pm

Kerry up 1c to 33c incl vat.

Farmer Ed · 14-07-2017 1:41pm

kowtow wrote: »

Farmer Ed wrote: »

Is it normal for board members in such companies to decide their own pay level? For example in at least in some of our co ops 4 board members decide their own pay and the pay of senior management. Obviously they seek the advice of an outside consultant. However I guess there would be no real incentive for a consultant not to give a pay rise as it might not do his own prospects of getting the job next any good.

Yes.

The board has to decide their own pay level, because in practice they are the only ones that can. The remuneration committee is really to protect individual directors negotiations from their colleagues and and make it look a bit more sanitary.

Outside consultants are often just a waste of shareholders funds. Since they always want the consultancy business next year and the year after (duh!) they really only supply the research and paperwork to justify proposed pay levels. They certainly don't walk in the door and say "right, so how are we going to slim your salaries down then..."

Pressure on board salaries (and many hirings and firings) in practice almost always comes from big shareholders - often pension funds etc., acting alone or in informal groups. No board is going to risk an AGM if they don't have proxies on the way in to the room, so if a couple of blocks of 3 or 4 or 5% have been on the phone and made their feelings known then they are going to act to resolve issues in advance. Since those blocks are normally pension funds anyway, the general pressure will be upwards, but they won't let things run away by comparison with other similar boards or where performance has been compromised. If there is evidence of real underperformance at a company then a ritual sacrifice is usually required just so everyone knows that everyone was on the ball - and the risk of being in the wrong place at the wrong time is one reason why working directors salaries often seem so high.

I remember being at a AGM one time where the board members were forced to resign after a vote of no confidence only to have themselves "re elected" the following week. So I guess its all down to how accountable the board is to the shareholders? In many cases it would be my experience that farmers generally can be a bit star struck and as a result don't make any meaningful contribution at board level other than rubber stamp decisions made by management.

kowtow · 14-07-2017 6:22pm

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

Kerry up 1c to 33c incl vat.

Have a feeling the latest European average is 33/kg which would make them bang on it (if there isn't an adjustment to be made for constituents?)

whelan2 · 16-07-2017 5:56pm

How is bellview going this year?

Fixture · 17-07-2017 9:17am

whelan2 wrote: »

How is bellview going this year?

I'd say all plants are flat out this year given the volume of milk around

GrasstoMilk · 17-07-2017 9:24am

15cpl difference in June '17 milk compared to June '16. Very similar solids
Crazy!

whelan2 · 17-07-2017 9:46am

GrasstoMilk wrote: »

15cpl difference in June '17 milk compared to June '16. Very similar solids
Crazy!

12.5cpl here. Some difference from last year

stanflt · 17-07-2017 9:50am

whelan2 wrote: »

12.5cpl here. Some difference from last year

12.5 cpl here too

I think gg is dreaming again at 15 cpl

His protein would have to be 0.4 higher than last yr to be at 15 cpl

Milk Price III

Comments