RightTurnClyde wrote: » I happy enough with a 2 cent drop. Think of the poor reps, those new Passats don't come cheap. If 2 cent keeps my coop rep in a new TDI Passat with leather seats, I'm happy.:)
atlantic mist wrote: » see FrieslandCampina uped the june milk price to 42cent and were going the opposite way
castletrader wrote: » http://www.agriland.ie/news/friesland-campina-ups-milk-price-june/ Are we happy to see our coops going the opposite way on price ??????:mad:
Brown Podzol wrote: » That may be only 13.5% difference in price between FrieslandCampina and Irish price but it represents c. 33% less profit for Irish farmers. The price to pay for the inefficient structure of the Irish dairy industry. This does not include the amount of profit invested tax efficiently on behalf of farmers by FrieslandCampina available to them when they retire from farming.
atlantic mist wrote: » that would be nice something when we retire, not much pension contributions with a notional milk profit of 6c per liter id imagine (as per indexed scheme) management and employees im sure have a nice pension for when they retire, payed for by ourselves of course. find it funny employee costs always accounted in there accounts but the cows milk themselves for our cost base
awaywithyou wrote: » Prob not the right thread but sure it caused a few arguments a while back...:)http://www.agriland.ie/news/chief-state-solicitor-examine-irregular-milk-movements/
stanflt wrote: » now now :P i hope its premier milk;)
5live wrote: » Partly. The Irish dairy industry is structured towards producing commodities for sale for further processing/additions for value added. why is this who decided to just base our selves on commodities does 20% of our product get sold in domestic market?? Do all our production plants just produce commodity products, if so we should be highly specialised al ready, but dont think they are seen as major building occuring at most coops we in gii had a consumer products with strong brand but they are now with glanbia plc, wait till you see them being sold to a foreign competitor in time to come cant understand the speration of value added products from our commiedy products, they would certainly help us in years of low world milk price a good mix of both products i no this is contray to all the info on farming papers but would we be better off with smaller coops specialising in high value added goods to maximise farmers return than competing with lower cost regions of production on the commiedy market or would each coop be better off to do a joint venture with one of the leading word dairies seen as they hav access to markets al ready and just need product, save us needing sales staff and they having a larger product mix with better value added products by each dairy joining a different large dairy it would keep competitiveness in home market and give suppliers a choice depending on products
atlantic mist wrote: » why is this who decided to just base our selves on commodities does 20% of our product get sold in domestic market?? Do all our production plants just produce commodity products, if so we should be highly specialised al ready, but dont think they are seen as major building occuring at most coops we in gii had a consumer products with strong brand but they are now with glanbia plc, wait till you see them being sold to a foreign competitor in time to come cant understand the speration of value added products from our commiedy products, they would certainly help us in years of low world milk price a good mix of both products i no this is contray to all the info on farming papers but would we be better off with smaller coops specialising in high value added goods to maximise farmers return than competing with lower cost regions of production on the commiedy market or would each coop be better off to do a joint venture with one of the leading word dairies seen as they hav access to markets al ready and just need product, save us needing sales staff and they having a larger product mix with better value added products by each dairy joining a different large dairy it would keep competitiveness in home market and give suppliers a choice depending on products
5live wrote: » There is more chance of all processors being taken over than them all joining up. As i see it, there are so many boards and so many on those boards that they consider joining up as cutting their own throats as their chances of being on the board is halved if two processors join. They seem to revel in being on the board with the prestige that brings them. And don't forget that their seat MUST be kept warm for their son so he too can get the prestige that the family owns and deserves:rolleyes:. The problem with small niche processors concentrating on high value-added is the small processor will not have the R&D capacity to invest in developing products and further developing any new related products when the developed ones come off patent. And then you have 4 or 5 small units doing the exact same R&D to develop the same or similar products. If we had one large processor allocating, say, 5% of turnover to R&D then any related R&D could be joined up and the saved money could be used in a different area to develop different products or extend the patent rights in already developed products. But its not going to happen:(
freedominacup wrote: » It should be a standard ICOS rule that in order to go forward for a board election to any co-op the farmer in question should have physical and financial performance in the top 5 percent at a minimum. All area elections should be gotten rid of as well. If the three best candidates for three board poitions in glanbia happened to be living on whelan2's road then so be it the "rest" of glanbia would have no local reps. Board elections should take place 2 years in advance of the candidates being due to take up their positions in order to give them time to complete an MBA. We need people with real proven ability on our boards. The standards laid out above should be absolute minimums.
5live wrote: » I agree in general with that but the MBA, while nice, wouldn't really be necessary? From Kerrys point of view, the farmers on the board had enough knowledge and experience to back Brosnan, Friel and McCarthy and grow the business from the tangled remains of the Dairy Disposal Board. I wouldn't agree with the top 5%though. You would be including only the long established in that figure and excluding a huge number of proficient farmers still building their business and draining, building housing and fertility from the group eligible to be elected. Top 25% would include those and have a good reserve eligible to serve who may be unable to due to health/family/other issues. The education part overall, though, i agree with. There is some recognition of the issue of financial training in the new Dept scheme for new entrants but there should be 20-30 places available each year in large co-ops to educate farmers on the issues needed for management and board participation. A couple of specialised modules in finance and management and further ones dealing with responsibilities of Board members would be my way of going and, as you said, possibly leading up to an MBA for those few with the time and energy to complete it.
atlantic mist wrote: » difficult one thou whos top 5% the coop, icbf, teagasc, or the revenue the top 5% could be different with each would we not be better to act like institutional investors and appoint some one with business experience/international experience in the area to work on our behalf and report back so that we can concentrate on our core business and they will ensure the strategic direction aligns with ours director with out the know how are pointless, they are filling seats instead of providing leadership and expertise, ensure mangemant are running company as efficiently as possible, i dont think anyone should put themselves forward without some form of training
freedominacup wrote: » If you're serious you'd get it done. BIL had to do one or his career was going to come to a sudden halt. He had no formal qualifications, plenty of industry qualifications but no real third level. He was spending 25-30 weeks a year outside the country and working 60-70 hours per week min while doing it. He mentioned to his boss that it wasn't an easy gig. Boss's reply "consider yourself lucky you don't have a couple of kids in the mix like I had doing mine". Tbh candidates should have their expenses covered while doing the course.
whelan2 wrote: » should also be an age limit
5live wrote: » That would rule out Warren Buffet so? The age limit is a very blunt instrument. In a lot of cases, those older farmers provide valuable experience and knowledge while younger ones provide energy and new ideas. To have one or other only weakens the business but a blend of both is best, imo. But how would that be achieved? No idea really.
whelan2 wrote: » i suppose what i meant is these lads that see their seat on the board as a job for live should not be let get comfortable in their position. Yes the experience is great from more senior memeber and a bit of get up and go from the younger people but in reality are there many younger people interested or available to do such jobs
Viewtodiefor wrote: » Ill do it no problem!
