20silkcut wrote: » I am a dry stock man myself so my only interaction with glanbia is buying meal/fert etc. But they have the worst credit terms of all the co-ops I deal with, and are the ONLY ones who send out suspension of credit letters and threaten to hand over to collection agency's. None of the other Co-ops behave like that . In saying that though when I do ring the glanbia office and explain that I am waiting on an Anc/bps payment to clear the account they do back off. But their first reaction is aggression.
visatorro wrote: but sure look at the work those managers are doin!! that's what wrong with every badly run company, too many lads passing the buck and not taking responsibility. safety in numbers mentality, its a culture that's very hard to get rid of
WheatenBriar wrote: » Aye,but the majority of board members in both GIIL and even the plc,represent farmer members still but ignore them,
kowtow wrote: » As far as the plc is concerned, no matter how many farmer shareholders there are, they must be "ignored" as a matter of law. When a plc board member considers their interest he / she must do so as shareholders whether they are farmers, butchers, bakers, or candlestick makers. It is always in the interest of a plc shareholder (even a farming shareholder, in so far as he is a shareholder and not a farmer) that the plc pays the lowest milk price possible. It doesn't matter whether the farmers form a majority - if they did, and if the plc paid to much for milk, even a shareholder with a single share would be able to reverse the actions of the board on the basis that they were subject to oppression. It's possible for the plc board to make an argument that not bankrupting it's farmers is in the longer term interest of all shareholders - but that is as far as it goes. Where GIIL is concerned I suspect the farmer side & the plc side are free to fight it out for there own interest - although the terms of the option on the buyout may tie some hands there. Where the (Glanbia) co-op itself is concerned the same regime applies as with any other co-operative in the country. The "margin" between the milk price the co-op side receives and what it pays out will in due course become shareholders funds. I'm not sure that we actually know how much that is or what agreement governs it, but I suspect that the margin is not great since there is an additional and specific shareholder support fund in play.
WheatenBriar wrote: Aye,but the logic there falls as they are not paying the lowest milk price possible as that could in theory be zero and of course the other co op's are not either given theres at least one below them Practice,theory and then theres pragmatism Theres little risk of the last one with GiiL it seems
kowtow wrote: » I'd be surprised if there wasn't a mechanism put in place when the Jv was created, there almost always is because a voluntary monopoly is being created. The plc will claim that any such arrangement is commercially sensitive and the terms can't be disclosed. If there wasn't heads should roll on the farmer side, or the lawyers that advised the co-op should be put over the coals. Who made the promise about market leading price... plc, GIIL, or co-op.? One thing is becoming increasingly clear.. these boards need to be untangled now. There are conflicts of interest and those conflicts are contributing to the sense that farmers are being shafted.
Dawggone wrote: » As per your previous post explaining the MO of a PLC being totally geared to shareholders interests, bang on, and rightly so. As for the above post Kowtow, is it not waaaay too late to be doing due diligence on GIIs interests for its members? That should have been done before the formation of the Coop. It would be interesting to know the Legal company in charge of the brief... Exit. Also what percentage of GII does the PLC own?
mahoney_j wrote: » Arrabawn price held at 25.8 vat inc.fair play to all involved ,all the talk late last week was of a price cut and board seemingly were gagged for weekend ,don't know why as its good news all things considered .makes glanbias cut all the more penal
keep going wrote: » A couple of questions, would glanbia suppliers be happy to share at roughly 20k per 100 cows if they were switching to carbery and would dairygold suplliers be happy if carbery amalgamated with dairygold but it was run by carbery and dairygolds name and headquaters in mitchlestown was gone forever.by the way theres huge pressure coming on carbery from within the industry over current milk price
alps wrote: » Am I reading it wrong in saying Arrabawn are up from 25.87 to 26.08? Small but very significant...
Buford T. Justice V wrote: » I hope Carbery don't cave in. Indeed, I hope Carbery start to expand and bring in more suppliers. There would be a huge payback to us all if the pressure from there resulted in efficiency gains in processing. This mantra of 'farmers need to be more efficient' should also be rammed back at processors!
mahoney_j wrote: » Havnt seen statement yet but are u including 0.2 cent SCC top up for sub 200 k milk
WheatenBriar wrote: » Uhm the competition authority might have something to say about that,what huge pressure? What say does Giil have there? None thankfully
Buford T. Justice V wrote: » The pressure that comes when your suppliers look at a small entity paying a better price constantly and start putting pressure on you to up your game.
Buford T. Justice V wrote: » Indeed, I hope Carbery start to expand and bring in more suppliers.
mahoney_j wrote: » Arrabawn base inc 0.2 SCC bonus 26.08 .my price 31.12 @4.28 fat 3.91 p .also announced that 2 cent per litre bonus paid on December ,Jan and Feb milk if you supply 20% ( I think) of peak months milk .ill milk in December to get that thanks .serms were mad for milk atmðŸ‘ðŸ‘ðŸ‘
red bull wrote: Well done Arrabawn board and management
Mulumpy wrote: » And hard working staff!!!
WheatenBriar wrote: » I don't understand?
mahoney_j wrote: Overpaid lot!!!!!!!
Buford T. Justice V wrote: » If you call into your area manager and start complaining that X co-op are able to pay more for your milk than they can, he will ignore you.
If lots did the same, he would take notice.
If a good number gave notice to supply that X co-op, it would amend its milk price pdq.
The chiefs don't like the indians getting restless because they start getting hassle. If that is combined with making phone calls or visiting the directors and the area members where they are drawn from, you have another layer of dissent that will be on Board members minds when the time comes to set milk price.
If the directors are then replaced at the next election, even more pressure is applied. Loyalty will break you. But the majority of farmers are perfectly content to mutter into their pints of a Saturday night and look for action but couldn't be arsed doing anything when the time for action arrives. *rant over*
WheatenBriar wrote: » Sad to refer to a cooperative movement as a cartel isnt it
alps wrote: » darker territory... The new coop can only accept a member that is not bound to another coop by a MSA...? I would have thought that the MSA was between the supplier and his coop.....up to either party to uphold or to break at their own decision, and to then deal with the consequences.
