milkprofit wrote: » Glanbia shareholders not allowed to meet without management staff there to mind them
keep going wrote: » nothing stopping anyone organising them selves.for example if i wanted to raise an issue at the agm,id form a little backroom team with a geographical spread over the area who feel the same about the issue.next roughly 10 days before agm we d start putting the story out in our respective areas about the issue lacing it with something a little controversal,using mainly the milk or ration lorry drivers or contractors but the real jewell-ai men always active in yards at agm time.hopefully it would get into a few marts to get the story moving but not enough time for management to prepare.next up on the night pick one man to raise the issue and throw alot of facts and figures into the early part of the question but draw out the end of the question.the next speaker listens to the management reply for any figures not mentioned and throws that back in the next question-gives the impression he s hiding something.after that let a few others speak but then get someone to do a final big question to drive it home .important to pick smaller to medium sized farmers(nobody trusts big farmers)to do the talking and not people how spout at every agm.the whole point of putting the story out early is farmers are hearing it first from lads they know and may trust and if you can get it through a mart there will be a good few legs add to it.lads will have their back up a little and will make a point of going to the agm wanting to find out more.next they hear a guy who seems to know what hes talking about and the management appearing coy with the facts.should set up a nice tense atmosphere for the management to wade through.if fellas only hear about it on the night they are unsure whether to support or not but by now they are well cross about it .all meetings get a little stage managing so you might as well do some of your own
Bass Reeves wrote: » In theory what you propose seems ok. However in general I find that administrators generally deal well with such senario's. 10 days to us may seem as only a short time for an administrator to react. However getting the word out as you put it would be much harder. Trying to get lads to meetings is even harder. The other issue is dry shareholders will in general side with management/board. The only way you can seriously change such an organisation is to really change elected officers/board. Look at the recent IFA election how many officers have changed and how many are really new faces. It si the same with co-op's it would take 2-3 elections to change a board, by that time new faces are intitutionalised.
Water John wrote: » Mark, his strategy is delivering a fine salary, in the league of the Ornua honchos, and he has a lovely pension awaiting him. The Board were warned, by some of their own colleagues, not to appoint him as he simply did not have the skillset required. Did they listen? In this case, 'fool me once etc,,, fool me twice etc.' Keep Going, I believe you are with one of the West Cork 4. Different attitude there and indeed Kerry. At least a respect for farmers. I know that doesn't put food on the table but its a very different place than the farmers of Glanbia or DG. Don't worry, I have done my soldering too, we all have different contributions to make. Social media is just another new tool. Processors have a structure and the paid staff to ensure how it runs for their benefit. Farmers are isolated and picked off individually. They in effect have no structure, As for farming orgs???? Healy has a final shot at proving they have a role or any significance. The wind is at his back and people willing to be led.
keep going wrote: » Do you really think we are going to see major changes in how the ifa operates, I have my doubts but we ll see.
WheatenBriar wrote: » Its immoral that farmers who do 90% of the work producing milk at a loss for others and those others go on to make a decent profit from it
Farmer Ed wrote: » I'd say 9 million between 9 people is mote than a decent profit
kevthegaff wrote: » What happened in Arrabawn last year, a group of farmers talked with their feet up and left, although unlikely with glanbia/DO msa have them tied down. It kept them on their toes with some changes like the collection levy scrap. Basically the only way top brass will listen if the msa is challenged through a large group of farmers, also boycott of feeds/fertilliser and even protests at certain co ops sorry processors (no one likes bad media). These processors are acting like vultures not co ops, but the right support/action can make some difference.
Milked out wrote: » Did arrabawn not pay a lower average milk price for a number of years on the back of investing themselves?. With that done now they are paying a better price? Maybe mj or some one could correct me on that if I'm wrong.
mahoney_j wrote: » Yes they did ,here's a stat for the 10 years previous to last year a 350 k ltr dairygold supplier would of ended up 70 k better off than the ewuivelant Arrabawn supplier over the same time with the same supply .a staggering figure .kevs point above and one which I've made is 100% on the money .atrabawn had a poor history on milk price to its suppliers hence the threat and carry out of last years musical chairs .real action with real results .the ceo ,board and organisation got the boot in the ass it so badly needed ..our books are now good ,debt levels low and a profit was made even last year when price was supported for most of year (to what level I do t know but will ask at upcoming agm . Massive money has been invested in our processing side (gas ,bottling and dryers )as well as lab sewage plant etc .we now pocess a state of the art lean and mean plant with lots of spare capacity for now .we are currently processing milk for Lakeland and lacpstrick .and our share up and Msa are absolutely in no way penal in comparasion to our rivals .
Milked out wrote: » Would that investment have been possible if in to those 10 years the milk price would have been higher?
Milked out wrote: » Edit to ask kev are u arrabawn or glanbia? U may know the answer to the above question
atlantic mist wrote: » Milk supply agreement have reduced the power of the suppliers and these were backed by our coops while in theory it was suppose to make our business stronger but it actually makes us weaker throu a lack of competition and in ability of managers to drop price at easy as No one can leave its a touch of communism creating into our coops, as my old boss used to say contracts are worth about as much as the paper they are written on and he was a solicitor, our courts are based on both law and ethics the clause for family members having to continue supply is not reasonable and couldn't hold up in court so I wouldn't b one bit worried about leaving gii if I can get a better price else where. Waiting for opportunity to hav our CEO on his own without Plc ceo there to talk for him, I'm actually more qualified for his job than he is and he is very hot headed can't for the life of me understand how he got the job imagine him meeting our buyers and getting as hot headed as he did on dungarvan no wonder we have the lowest base price on country I'd knock money off also the arrogance penalty I'd call it
pedigree 6 wrote: » Top thread here atm. Here's an article I read a few days ago about Fonterra suppliers. It kinda has similarities with this country and the importance of processor competition.http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11624179
blackdog1 wrote: » Think I'm suffering from depression today...I have a French student that tells me her uncle delivers milk for compte cheese and gets 53c a litre!!. And I thought Dawg had it good
Bass Reeves wrote: I think Kev you have hit the nail on the head. My own opinion was that MSA's are on very doubtful ground legally. A MSA means that you have to supply a product to an end user with out ever knowing the price before you deliver it. Also forcing suppliers to give long notice periods is questionable. The cost of such a challenge need not be huge. In reality most MSA are the same from each co-op/processor. 5K framers putting up 1K each would more than cover the cost and it is tax deductable.
kowtow wrote: » I wonder if it would be possible to seek a judicial review of the decision by coops not to take each others members where an msa was in force.
Farmer Ed wrote: » Is a judicial review even possible or are Co Op members bound to have all disputes with their CoOp resolved by arbitration? The fact is there is very little Co Op case law as no one has ever been able to take their Co Op to court. Something that badly needs to be changed as IMO farmers are being deprived of their constitutional right to justice and the protection of the courts. Unless people who have been expelled from CoOps could be free to take a case? They may have shot themselves in the foot there.
freedominacup wrote: » My msa is not with a co-op. They may have been a bit too sharp for their own good here. You signed with the company which is how they got away with different prices for those with the contract signed and those without. Co-op case law doesn't come into it. I got my solicitor to look at. Farmers son, didn't need things explained to him, he reckoned the contract was big roll. Told me to sign away as I wouldn't get the extra payments without it and there was no short term prospect of an alternative purchaser showing up.
