Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Kerry Co Op Shares

1151618202137

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,306 ✭✭✭Castlekeeper


    Some are saying that the possibility of a 75% majority vote by A shareholders for a liquidation option is impossible, delusional etc. Kerrycow and Straight here are A shareholders that might also seem disposed towards it. Many of the A shareholders with low shareholdings might also be wary of Kerrys plc's track record with milk prices and contracts, and the Co-op's record with investments and negotiations. More may have parents or siblings as B and C shareholders and mightn't want to see them short-changed

    Some more may be worried about a declining milk pool and an increasing levy on the remaining milk suppliers for a valueless business.

    I wouldn't see it being as cut and dried as others, but it's hypothetical at the minute.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,297 ✭✭✭awaywithyou


    Kerry Group or the Co-op havent been very honest with farmers over the last few years.. hence the concerns..

    and if enough info isnt provided to ease those concerns it will sstrenghten the No campaigners hand… the Co-op people at these meetings should be begging those attendiing to ask as many questions as possible… as its a disaster so far



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,274 ✭✭✭alps


    Very interesting, but will it at least be a business that's owned by a coop? Or owned by current shareholders directly and not by a coop?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 987 ✭✭✭cap.in.hand.


    The current coop shareholders seem to be contributing 70% towards initial purchase of a jV only...it's not going to be a JV anymore when final 30% paid



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,390 ✭✭✭kerry cow


    I have just read a kerry radio article from Jan 2024 where Denis Brosnan said kerry share holders should not invest in a kerry co op milk processing venture and that it should be only milk supplier that should fund it ,

    That makes total sense as why would you want non farmer investors investing their plc shares in to a milk processing , that should be only milk supplier oriented ,

    It will be a jv forever , especially when you use the funds of dry holders to invest in a jv , even when the plc is gone the dry share holder will be there ,

    Its just another mess , created by this board in their quest for existence ,

    Cut loose ,

    Vote for liquidation , and let the dry share holder go ,

    Farmers are not getting control

    They are jumping from the frying pan to the fire .



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,098 ✭✭✭jaymla627


    Is that confirmed? So dry shareholders aren't taking a haircut on their shares and will have to be reimbursed down the line, in tirlains case the shares are simply confiscated by the co-op in return for a spinout of plc shares maybe 30% of the entire deals value with the rest going towards buying the processing back of the plc, our present day where they have now amassed 700 million of members plc shares for a investment fund...

    Non milk supplying co-op share holders in tirlains case have been rail-roaded in favour of its active milk suppliers, in Kerrys case the priority is conserving co-op share-holder wealth at all costs



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 987 ✭✭✭cap.in.hand.


    The coop are asking all shareholders including dry shareholders to vote to allow or not a haircut on their shareholdings ... they're not being compulsory confiscated



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,306 ✭✭✭Castlekeeper


    I met two local dairy farmers in the last few days and I was surprised that both are saying that there's a lot more of a no than a yes vibe about.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,390 ✭✭✭kerry cow


    yes but they will get shares in the new KDI in return I presume for their hair cut investment ,

    Thus keeping them in the jv , and the co op would not be farmer own after the final 30% is bought out ,

    Open to correction on my interpretation



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,297 ✭✭✭awaywithyou


    https://www.independent.ie/farming/agri-business/glanbia-gets-green-light-from-shareholders-for-restructure-plans/35730666.html

    is there much of a difference between what glanbia did and what Kerry hope to do? do the glanbia plc still have their 40% stake in glanbia ireland?



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 228 ✭✭ftm2023


    You’re entitled to your opinions, KerryCow, but let’s set the record straight: the board of this new company will be made up primarily of dairy farmers like us. We will quite literally be in control.

    It’s disingenuous to suggest otherwise. Whatever your take on the other aspects of this deal, you’re simply wrong to claim that dairy farmers won’t have control—we absolutely will.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 228 ✭✭ftm2023


    Ah yeah, but sure they’d know what you’d want to hear too.

    The information meetings started a week too late and are finishing up a week too soon. There should have been at least three times as many meetings. If lads are confused, misinformed, or unsure, let them keep going to meetings until they figure it out. That’s how you ensure everyone understands what’s on the table.

    I know people who genuinely made it their life’s work to stop every spin-out from ever happening, and now those same people are canvassing hard for this JV and spin-out. And of course, every town has its cowboy who thinks the co-op and Kerry Group are secretly in league with the Illuminati, somehow responsible for everything wrong in their life and the world. Naturally, they’re voting against it.

    As for me, I don’t even have the luxury of being a milk supplier, let alone owning a single share. But if I did—if I was a milk supplier looking at a €10,000 top-up payment on my milk—I’d be taking that €10K without hesitation.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,098 ✭✭✭jaymla627


    Remaining 40% was bought in 2021 by the co-op, that deal seen co-op shares been converted to plc shares to the tune of half a billion and taken from members , to fund the deal, with noting issued in return, bar a spin-out of plc shares for cancelled co-op shares amounting to 140 million from memory...

    The caveat is a glanbia co-op share had no see through value, as it couldn't be sold/traded and converted to plc shares, the spin-outs where the only way any windfall could be got…

    Tirlain today couldn't exist in its current form only for the fact they where able to do the above to fund the buyout and invest in processing, it's why I'm scratching my head re Kerry co-op been able to function after the deal given debt levels/investment needed in processing/and threats to its milk pool



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21 cowman10


    unless the voting is rigged this won’t pass. Everyone I’ve spoken to are voting no.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,390 ✭✭✭kerry cow


    I think best solution at this stage the co op

    Should put forward motion to use all the funds required to buy this Jv outright, all now upfront , from the spin out of the shares , give each contributor new KDI shares and give them the dividend of each years profits , the balance they can put the plc shares in their pocket and away they go ,

    Then after that’s done come back to us milk suppliers and show us the contract you are offering and we can look it over and if there’s a better offer then we are off ,

    How does that sound to all share holders .



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 987 ✭✭✭cap.in.hand.


    Would it not be better to leave the deal as it is but take another 250m off the shareholders as a buffer in coop bank and dip into when making final payment for full in control of KDI



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,390 ✭✭✭kerry cow


    I wouldn’t agree . It would be much more clean cut to let the share holder’s continue to own what they indirectly already own , it’s just a case of tidying up the transfer papers .
    The profit of the KDI would be distributed to its share holders .

    They can pay the farmers what they feel the market supports , no different to the plc ,

    In general the farmers were relatively happy with the plc , except for them not following the contract ,

    So let the new KDI draft us a contract that suits both sides .

    So this deal can be tweaked slightly and let the farmers out , They don’t have the funds for this



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 987 ✭✭✭cap.in.hand.


    Well then there is no incentive to keep current management to stay on to ease coop management in gradually..that's fatal



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,390 ✭✭✭kerry cow


    The management of KDI would stay as is , everything stays as is , except the kerry co op board and its share holders would have the decision of strategy .
    what holding hands have they ?
    just get the plc to buy product as in this jv proposal ,

    If you are spending 500 m and you can get yourself to the position they find themselves today , and with no debts or loans , then sure they should be in a much better situation to succeed .



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,390 ✭✭✭kerry cow


    KDI been debt free and holding present management , and plc buying kDI product , and the kerry plc able to focus on there goals ,

    KDI distribution their 60 to 80 million profits to their share holders

    It’s
    a simple solution that may satisfy most .


    if it was the only option , then share holder would support it as the alternative , decribed by ftm is unthinkable for share holders , locked in till it reaches the dreaded 5%


    It’s an option that should be explored .

    Put it out there



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 987 ✭✭✭cap.in.hand.


    milk suppliers will still have to contribute though.. but not as much...



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,297 ✭✭✭awaywithyou


    Yeah anyone I've met is also voting NO... the mood in Ballyroe tomorrow night will be interesting



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,241 ✭✭✭✭Bass Reeves


    Neither of these are going to happen as like liquidation they would not get passed. Even some A shareholders would not vote for either of those proposals and very few B share holders vote for them.

    Slava Ukrainii



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,719 ✭✭✭Bellview


    This is a business transaction and should be trared as so. Using good friday as a compare is irrelevant.. the b and c are being held as prisoners without any way to release. The current redemption is better. I have not seen one reply where it's simply explained what happens to the plc shares and cash in bank of the co op. Is there a trick being played on shareholders who in reality don't benefit from this.. there is a real case for a no vote and then hopefully the board can explain the full finance transaction.. and not rely on the 5.3 share swap.. which is all I seem to hear



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,719 ✭✭✭Bellview


    When i look at this all share holders they are taking a haircut.. as they are effectively putting in one plc share worth over 80 at min.. given the new co op will not have an easy way to trade shares these may be worth less than half than value if you try sell in grey..



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,390 ✭✭✭kerry cow


    if share holders don’t like the offering ,

    Then a no vote would put the ball in to the plc ,

    The plc even if they went and sold to another buyer would still be stuck with kerry co op owning 11% of them which they don’t want association with , and a liquidation is the only option available to kerry co op as they would be past there sell by date .

    So a No vote is not the end of the world .
    unless ftm would like to explain , when he touched on but failed to elaborate earlier ,

    I love to hear the scare mongering that goes on , it can be very entertaining ,

    But the reality is there is always another bite at cherry ,



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,390 ✭✭✭kerry cow


    kerry plc could sell the milk suppliers to another buyer and stipulate that no share up is required , milk suppliers would support that and the milk pool would transfer as a whole as it would benifit the suppliers ,

    Milk suppliers would be very sucure in moving to a proven DG , tirlan or similar , with no share up , but coming with plc steel and a steady milk pool .

    Kerry co op go your own way then ,

    So there are options ,

    Give the share holders 100%

    Give suppliers what they already have , a milk buyer and no levies .

    kerry co op are pushing their own agenda , and the suppliers are been scared in to this ,

    STOP



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 987 ✭✭✭cap.in.hand.




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,390 ✭✭✭kerry cow


    Ftm you mentioned earlier that 1 c cost on to 40 c now it’s is 2.5% extra cost ,

    But in fact if you make 10 cent a litre profit , it’s 10% of your profit , and in a bad year it would be a higher % of your profit . SO like the Kerry’s , it can be spun what ever way you like it .



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 171 ✭✭kerry_man15


    If this deal is so great why are they keeping all the B and C shareholders? Why can't/won't they finance it themselves? The coop have wanted to get rid of B's and C's for years but now it's convenient for them to keep some of the B/C's money rather than stumping up for it themselves. I'd imagine most B's and C's don't want their money tied up in this new venture and if given the option they'd like to get all their money out now. It could be a long, long time before they get their money back, if ever! For every 100 shares a B/C holder has they're keeping about 8k and putting it into this new venture. This should have been optional. People don't like being forced into a deal they have no interest in. Many have waited a long, long time to cash out fully, it's pretty bad to say no, you can't have the full value of your shares, we're taking a significant amount to put towards a new venture and there's nothing you can do about it. Why would they want the majority of shareholders in this new venture to have little to no interest in it?



Advertisement