whelan2 wrote: » In fairness at the time of the signing of the MSA milk price was good there was no indication that price would be so low for so long. Also by not signing we would loose out on any bonuses available.
Buford T. Justice V wrote: While it's something I'd like to see, I doubt you could place existing workers onto a variable salary without them agreeing.
Buford T. Justice V wrote: That means you would be waiting 20 years before it would have a significant benefits.
Farmer Ed wrote: » That in itself should never have been allowed happen. I warned people on here 3 years ago about the dangers of those contracts and was dismissed by most as a some kind of conspiracy theorist. Those contracts are a form of entrapment.
rushvalley wrote: €100 isn't bad when realistically it only cost you the diesel needed for the job unless you had a breakdown.
Farmer Ed wrote: That in itself should never have been allowed happen. I warned people on here 3 years ago about the dangers of those contracts and was dismissed by most as a some kind of conspiracy theorist. Those contracts are a form of entrapment.
kowtow wrote: » I think that is a very valid issue and one which ought to be / actually is / in the direct control of members, if only they could be bothered to do something about it. In banking we had coco bonds - maybe co-ops need the same. Basically a portion of every co-op salary (and a big portion of the biggest salaries) is paid in units against a formula which is an amplified version of the milk price. So (for example) let a unit (call it a mooco) be based on the milk price minus, say, 20c as an absolute base. Replace €50,000 euros of each of the top guys salaries with 5,000 moocos. If the milk price is 25c he gets 25k (25-20 x 5,000), if it is 30 he gets 50k (30-20 x 5,000) and so on and so on... less than 20c and he gets nothing. Perfectly possible for co-op memberships to vote a system like that into existence, it doesn't need the government, or ICSMA, or the IFA, or aunt sally, or anyone else - just an EGM proposal. It would give producers the confidence they need when it comes to choosing who to supply when their present MSA runs out. If they don't like it, I for one would like to hear co-op management give a detailed explanation of why their interests shouldn't be aligned to producers.
whelan2 wrote: » A supplier cant switch so we are stuck with these schemes until we can
Milked out wrote: A good idea, have u come across anything alongside it where management wouldn't act recklessly to keep their own wage up? As banks did here sending out loans back in tiger times. Pure transparency in everything would be ideal but unlikely
Farmer Ed wrote: » Just reading about the glanbia loan scheme. Am I right in saying it is for a max of 2cl? If that is correct if a supplier could just switch to a better paying co op he'd still have more immediate money in his pocket and not in the form of a loan. Such spin!! How much did the pr people charge to make the propaganda video alone? Disgraceful the way they are trying to pull the wool over farmers eyes! And as for our new minister? same circus just a different clown.
Water John wrote: » My point is, we need a mechanism that tempers the extremes of modulation of the price. Its OK if it just touches break even at the bottom of a cycle. But dipping into negative and staying there too long is a disaster recipie. A license, might dampen these extremes. A licence would require active management by all parties. Following the trend of the pig industry is not good.
kowtow wrote: » whelan2 wrote: » The main thing sticking out is why does the farmer have to take all the pain? Should there not be redundancies/ pay cuts for those running/working in the co-ops. Its extrememly unfair to the farmer to see basically no cuts being implemented, should their pay be the same at 40cpl as 20cpl? I think that is a very valid issue and one which ought to be / actually is / in the direct control of members, if only they could be bothered to do something about it. In banking we had coco bonds - maybe co-ops need the same. Basically a portion of every co-op salary (and a big portion of the biggest salaries) is paid in units against a formula which is an amplified version of the milk price. So (for example) let a unit (call it a mooco) be based on the milk price minus, say, 20c as an absolute base. Replace 50,000 euros of each of the top guys salaries with 5,000 moocos. If the milk price is 25c he gets 25k (25-20 x 5,000), if it is 30 he gets 50k (30-20 x 5,000) and so on and so on... less than 20c and he gets nothing. Perfectly possible for co-op memberships to vote a system like that into existence, it doesn't need the government, or ICSMA, or the IFA, or aunt sally, or anyone else - just an EGM proposal. It would give producers the confidence they need when it comes to choosing who to supply when their present MSA runs out. If they don't like it, I for one would like to hear co-op management give a detailed explanation of why their interests shouldn't be aligned to producers.
whelan2 wrote: » The main thing sticking out is why does the farmer have to take all the pain? Should there not be redundancies/ pay cuts for those running/working in the co-ops. Its extrememly unfair to the farmer to see basically no cuts being implemented, should their pay be the same at 40cpl as 20cpl?
Water John wrote: » It seems those countries who have always marketed product like WMP and SMP have continued to do so, even extra production. It is those countries making other stuff and who have used WMP and SMP for their surplus eg France that have created the worst problem. A licience to produce would have limited this surplus. In effect the dumping of France + others have disrupted the product market. Prices might not have dropped so badly for us if they were not dumping extra production into storage. Being free to produce what you like, resulting in producing it at a loss, is no freedom at all.
Water John wrote: » Being free to produce what you like, resulting in producing it at a loss, is no freedom at all.
greenfield21 wrote: » The only thing that can save irish dairy is the reintroduction of quotas.
whelan2 wrote: I wonder are they allowing for many suppliers leaving when the first msa is up? Have spoken to a few around here who are keeping their options open. Cant see too many new entrants coming in
jaymla627 wrote: » Would reckon it's more a case they're owed a small fortune for feed/fert etc that's climbing every day as suppliers who have probably maxed out credit at independent merchants start doing all their business with glanbia as it's more then likely their only way of accessing supplies , milk flex will help alleviate this somewhat..... The new scheme is simply to help keep milk supplies up heading into the autumn/winter and stop lads taking drastic actions in selling/culling cows.... Talbot and Bergin never in their worst nightmares thought that heading into a quota free era that they would be faced with the prospect of a stagnet/declining milk pool all their projections going forward are based on us increasing supply year on year and allowing them to cream their 3% margin of the top of a increasing supply meaning more profits/higher share prices and most importantly the ability to pay back debt if 200-300 million litres less milk then they had penciled in where to be supplied in say 2017/2018 it would cause them some serious headaches
Timmaay wrote: » How much per year for diesel, tractor depreciation and yourown time driving for the mowing out of interest?? In fairness a borrowing of 3.5k which is say 350/cow if ya got 100cows, I'm more talking about trying to service 2/3k per cow which is a very realistic minimum figure for anyone who has heavily expanded over the last few years.
