Milk Price- Please read Mod note in post #1

whelan2 · 18-10-2015 02:16PM

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.

Had this last year on my dads account, letters being sent, account manager knew nothing about these letters being sent out, then when account was cleared and discount given , he kept getting a statement that he owed 20 euro, took 2 months to get the paperwork cleared. One hand doesnt know what the other hand is doing

Mulumpy · 18-10-2015 02:35PM

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

I'm all for a proper manager structure but where I work we don't have enough people doing the actual work which results in overtime and more expense for the company. We now have 5 managers doing what 1 used to do effectively before.

kowtow · 18-10-2015 05:47PM

WheatenBriar wrote: »

Aye,but the majority of board members in both GIIL and even the plc,represent farmer members still but ignore them,

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 · 19-10-2015 12:45AM

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.

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 · 19-10-2015 06:52AM

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

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 · 19-10-2015 07:17AM

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.

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?

jaymla627 · 19-10-2015 08:36AM

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?

40% I think the funny thing here is any glanbia suppliers pissing and moaning about Glanbia's actions at the minute have made their own beds to lyin when they voted to ratify the formation of gll and drop their shareholding from 51% to 41% in the plc for a measly 15,000 grand a farmer on average which was actually a very misinterpreted figure when you consider alot of members had 100,000s euro windfalls from shares at the time....
It was widely flagged at the time what's happening now with glanbia and pricing would come to past and it has, farmers where like turkeys voting for Xmas when they gave up a controlling stake in the plc

mahoney_j · 19-10-2015 09:19AM

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 · 19-10-2015 09:40AM

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 · 19-10-2015 10:22AM

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

Am I reading it wrong in saying Arrabawn are up from 25.87 to 26.08? Small but very significant...

Buford T. Justice XIX · 19-10-2015 10:37AM

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

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 · 19-10-2015 10:42AM

alps wrote: »

Am I reading it wrong in saying Arrabawn are up from 25.87 to 26.08? Small but very significant...

Havnt seen statement yet but are u including 0.2 cent SCC top up for sub 200 k milk

WheatenBriar · 19-10-2015 10:44AM

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!

Uhm the competition authority might have something to say about that,what huge pressure?
What say does Giil have there?
None thankfully

alps · 19-10-2015 10:46AM

mahoney_j wrote: »

Havnt seen statement yet but are u including 0.2 cent SCC top up for sub 200 k milk

Yes....says inclusive of SCC bonus.....that's probably the difference. ...nice one..

Buford T. Justice XIX · 19-10-2015 10:48AM

WheatenBriar wrote: »

Uhm the competition authority might have something to say about that,what huge pressure?
What say does Giil have there?
None thankfully

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.

WheatenBriar · 19-10-2015 11:03AM

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.

I don't understand?

red bull · 19-10-2015 11:37AM

Well done Arrabawn board and management

mahoney_j · 19-10-2015 11:46AM

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‘

kowtow · 19-10-2015 11:56AM

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

Indeed, I hope Carbery start to expand and bring in more suppliers.

So do I.

Unless they are one tiny supplier who promises not to send in more than a couple of hundred gallons a week when he hasn't the time to make cheese out of it.

I think they should definitely let him in.

blue5000 · 19-10-2015 12:17PM

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‘

Anyone worked out what extra it costs to produce 20% (?) in winter? Is 2 cent bonus enough?

Mulumpy · 19-10-2015 12:22PM

red bull wrote:

Well done Arrabawn board and management

And hard working staff!!!

mahoney_j · 19-10-2015 12:26PM

Mulumpy wrote: »

And hard working staff!!!

Overpaid lot!!!!!!!

Cow Porter · 19-10-2015 12:53PM

heard yesterday that carbery held. he had heard from another fella so just hope it is true.

As said if other coops ringing carbery or who ever to drop price competition authority should intervene???

Buford T. Justice XIX · 19-10-2015 01:35PM

WheatenBriar wrote: »

I don't understand?

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*

Mulumpy · 19-10-2015 01:38PM

mahoney_j wrote:

Overpaid lot!!!!!!!

Cheek!!

WheatenBriar · 19-10-2015 02:17PM

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.

correct

If lots did the same, he would take notice.

No he wouldn't, he'd go home at five as usual and review the tbc results around 930 the next morning as usual and make a few phone calls

If a good number gave notice to supply that X co-op, it would amend its milk price pdq.

well as the strathroy affect shows it slows the fall alright

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.

Lots of pressure in years gone by eg 2009 and they didn't give a hoot

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*

The former to date doesn't happen due to the latter
The game changer in the last two years is the secret cartel has been broken
Sad to refer to a cooperative movement as a cartel isnt it

kowtow · 19-10-2015 02:29PM

WheatenBriar wrote: »

Sad to refer to a cooperative movement as a cartel isnt it

+1000

Been trying to put my finger on it but that is exactly what makes my blood boil about all this.

alps · 19-10-2015 02:55PM

The former to date doesn't happen due to the latter
The game changer in the last two years is the secret cartel has been broken
Sad to refer to a cooperative movement as a cartel isnt it[/QUOTE]

I'm worried that the cartel has been put back in place by ICOS. It has recently got coops to agree to a protocol of accepting suppliers from another coop.

They cannot take a supplier from another coop without the farmer giving his coop 2 months notice, and must set up an agreement where debts in the original coop are cleared (sensible)
From here on it falls into 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. It seems very strange to me that ICOS is to intervene and make a third party force a farmer to stay in an agreement that they may not wish to stay in for whatever reason.

This would seem to me to be the extension of the old gentleman's agreement..

Remember ICOS represents the Co ops, it does not represent farmers....these subtle decisons will have have the effect of tying down farmers again to the extent that the inefficient or badly managed coop is protected. This does not serve farmers in the best way. If we are all tied down...all we can do is express annoyance....all the coop and board have to do for a few days is turn off the phone.

kowtow · 19-10-2015 04:44PM

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.

Yes.

That is a very serious situation indeed. Believe it or not it amounts to an automatic injunction against the supplier when he is in dispute over an MSA.

Its an essential principle of law that you must be able to break a civil agreement (or indeed perform under one) by your actions as well as by your signature. If you had to wait until a court (for example) invalidated an existing sales or employment contract before starting a new one you would starve - or rather you would become a prisoner of the contract you were under.

It's to be assumed that the co-ops will take the word of the other co-op (in other words that the supplier will have to be "released" by his former co-op) in order to sell his milk at all.

It's what used to be known as "indentured labour".

WheatenBriar · 19-10-2015 04:59PM

A company or a son or daughter taking over the enterprise or starting a 'new' one is these msa's achilles heel as is strathroy, when do we expect the forces of president Icos and chairman glanbia to start carpet bombing tyrone?

Milk Price- Please read Mod note in post #1

Comments