Milk Price- Please read Mod note in post #1

whelan2 · 06-06-2016 09:08AM

RightTurnClyde wrote: »

Ah lads, all of these ideas assume the coops have our best interests at heart. More complicated pay schemes, for management and staff this time, that can be manipulated and twisted and in the end we'll be no better off.
If they had the best interest of the farmers at their core and were confident of their efforts, all they have to do is give the suppliers the option to clear their trading account and the MSA becomes null and void . Job done. And let suppliers supply any processor the following day.
All could be done in 24 hrs and farmers benefiting from it a day later. All they'd have to focus on then is paying the farmer the best price possible, with no place to hide

Edit. It would do away with all this discontent, and allow farmers and coops to put their money where their mouth is.

Agree entirely, the only thing the msa is doing is building up resentment towards the management at farmer level. How can this realistically be changed and do they want to bother changing? The feeling around here is that we are the peasant farmers and they are the royalty, it should never have turned out like this

Buford T. Justice XIX · 06-06-2016 09:35AM

whelan2 wrote: »

Agree entirely, the only thing the msa is doing is building up resentment towards the management at farmer level. How can this realistically be changed and do they want to bother changing? The feeling around here is that we are the peasant farmers and they are the royalty, it should never have turned out like this

We are exactly where we put ourselves.

The biggest critics of anything in my area are the ones crying when things happen but are at home toasting their toes when the decisions to make those things happen are being made.

In fairness, people can't complain about the way things are when they don't get up off their ar$e to support those working to prevent decisions going against them.

It's not someone elses fault, it's yours if you do nothing to prevent it happening.

And I include myself in that criticism as well.

mf240 · 06-06-2016 09:37AM

I hadn't dealt with Glanbia for inputs for years.

This year I priced them for fert and they gave me the best price, so I gave them the business. Paid the agreed price and cleared the bill.

Then the milk cheque arrives with an extra 15 a tonne taken for the fert.

Called down to be told it was a "mistake " and that I'll get it back next month.

Ye can draw yere own conclusions.

whelan2 · 06-06-2016 09:38AM

mf240 wrote: »

I hadn't dealt with Glanbia for inputs for years.

This year I priced them for fert and they gave me the best price, so I gave them the business. Paid the agreed price and cleared the bill.

Then the milk cheque arrives with an extra 15 a tonne taken for the fert.

Called down to be told it was a "mistake " and that I'll get it back next month.

Ye can draw yere own conclusions.

am waiting since november to get 160 euro back off them :mad:

whelan2 · 06-06-2016 09:40AM

Buford T. Justice V wrote: »

We are exactly where we put ourselves.

The biggest critics of anything in my area are the ones crying when things happen but are at home toasting their toes when the decisions to make those things happen are being made.

In fairness, people can't complain about the way things are when they don't get up off their ar$e to support those working to prevent decisions going against them.

It's not someone elses fault, it's yours if you do nothing to prevent it happening.

And I include myself in that criticism as well.

Agree I have gone to meetings and had my say -missed last one- Most of the lads around here never go to meetings. Things have changed from years ago, I cant understand why we are not standing up to them, the fight seems to be gone from most people

mf240 · 06-06-2016 09:42AM

whelan2 wrote: »

am waiting since november to get 160 euro back off them :mad:

Going to close my account if I can get it back.

kowtow · 06-06-2016 11:14AM

interesting to see the further reports of the bond scheme.

On the face of it, bonds exchangeable for shares at will by the subscriber. Depending on the bond price & coupon & the exchange terms that may be a stiff price to pay for money.

Also, 45M EUR (just under half) of the bond proceeds to be kept for working capital. That's a way bigger chunk than I expected when I saw the original announcement.

Perhaps they are going to use the 45M from the PLC shares to lend themselves their salaries for the next couple of years? Oh, no, wait a minute ... they aren't farmers!

Waffletraktor · 06-06-2016 11:27AM

kowtow wrote: »

interesting to see the further reports of the bond scheme.

On the face of it, bonds exchangeable for shares at will by the subscriber. Depending on the bond price & coupon & the exchange terms that may be a stiff price to pay for money.

Also, 45M EUR (just under half) of the bond proceeds to be kept for working capital. That's a way bigger chunk than I expected when I saw the original announcement.

Perhaps they are going to use the 45M from the PLC shares to lend themselves their salaries for the next couple of years? Oh, no, wait a minute ... they aren't farmers!

In idiots English, they're taken loans out against the shares farmers own and then offering it to farmers so they get paid for the meal/fert and stuff they've sold to farmers who can't afford to pay because they're on a crap price?

atlantic mist · 06-06-2016 12:02PM

should we use cheap funds available now to divest from agriculture, no return on investment for next few years might be better spent else where

is there new MSA to avail of loan? is loan instead of coop support in future?

whelan2 · 06-06-2016 12:17PM

atlantic mist wrote: »

should we use cheap funds available now to divest from agriculture, no return on investment for next few years might be better spent else where

is there new MSA to avail of loan? is loan instead of coop support in future?

10 year msa for milk flex loan dont kow about the other one

atlantic mist · 06-06-2016 12:25PM

no engineers report required for draw down on milk flex, given in a lump sum:)

new interest free loan is drawn in low prices, aimed at cash flow but can be used elsewhere

kevthegaff · 06-06-2016 01:23PM

whelan2 wrote:

10 year msa for milk flex loan dont kow about the other one

Jes that's a life sentence

whelan2 · 06-06-2016 01:26PM

kevthegaff wrote: »

Jes that's a life sentence

Alot could happen in those 10 years. Dont know if its 10 years from the date of new loan or from when original one was signed

kowtow · 06-06-2016 01:28PM

Will Glanbia suppliers get the full admission / issue documents for the bonds? I would have thought they should although not familiar with the details of the constitution so can't be sure.

Farmer Ed · 06-06-2016 01:42PM

kevthegaff wrote: »

We're u still farmer ed 3 yrs ago?

Yes I've been on here just over 3 years. I remember getting dogs abuse from the likes of hurling_lad and Farmer tipp for suggesting that msas were a bad idea Funny at the time the farm organisations also thought MSA's were a great idea. Only now O'Leary seems to be having a road to Damascus moment when the horse has bolted. If he really is serious maybe it's about time he really started to make it a real deal breaker with the co ops . Some are not even sure MSA's are they legally binding? If O'Leary is serious? Then why don't Ifa bring a test case? Time for then to **** or get of the pot IMO.

kowtow · 06-06-2016 02:10PM

Waffletraktor wrote: »

In idiots English, they're taken loans out against the shares farmers own and then offering it to farmers so they get paid for the meal/fert and stuff they've sold to farmers who can't afford to pay because they're on a crap price?

Well actually they are only letting farmers borrow half of it to help pay the fert bills. The other half they are just keeping, for working capital (i.e. salaries).

More importantly, should the value of Glanbia shares (i.e. plc shares) suddenly rocket, the lenders will be able to excersise the conversion and take the shares instead of the money. This will save money as they won't need to pay consultants to help them give them back to the farmers.

kowtow · 06-06-2016 02:14PM

Farmer Ed wrote: »

road to Damascus moment when the horse has bolted.

Did any horse bolt on the road to Damascus? I thought perhaps it was more of a playful buck?...

Notwithstanding that I am not sure a test case is an easy thing to orchestrate, most obviously because you need the other side to make the running, all you can do is break the agreement and see if they wake up. You might be able to engineer refusal by another supplier on foot of the existing MSA and then try for an injunction compelling them to take your milk.. fraught with difficulty I would think, and costly.

The discovery would be interesting though.

rangler1 · 06-06-2016 02:28PM

Farmer Ed wrote: »

Yes I've been on here just over 3 years. I remember getting dogs abuse from the likes of hurling_lad and Farmer tipp for suggesting that msas were a bad idea Funny at the time the farm organisations also thought MSA's were a great idea. Only now O'Leary seems to be having a road to Damascus moment when the horse has bolted. If he really is serious maybe it's about time he really started to make it a real deal breaker with the co ops . Some are not even sure MSA's are they legally binding? If O'Leary is serious? Then why don't Ifa bring a test case? Time for then to **** or get of the pot IMO.

Will you sing a different tune ffs, Farmers are well able to do their own research before they sign up to something.
Coops agreed to buy all your milk ....haven't heard of anyone being refused, is there some other part of the agreement they're not abiding by.
After signing a document is a funny time to be questioning the legality of same.....sounds like a cop out on your part

Farmer Ed · 06-06-2016 02:34PM

kowtow wrote: »

Did any horse bolt on the road to Damascus? I thought perhaps it was more of a playful buck?...

Notwithstanding that I am not sure a test case is an easy thing to orchestrate, most obviously because you need the other side to make the running, all you can do is break the agreement and see if they wake up. You might be able to engineer refusal by another supplier on foot of the existing MSA and then try for an injunction compelling them to take your milk.. fraught with difficulty I would think, and costly.

The discovery would be interesting though.

Exactly under co op law it would be very costly as they would drag it out in to a very expensive arbitration process. I personally know of at least two cases of farmers who were put of taking a case by Dg threatening to pull out all the stops and have a full blown no expense spared arbitration process.

Individual farmers don't have the resources for that and the co ops know it. That is why the only hope farmers may have is if one of the farm organisations were to grow a pair and come up with the resources to actually fight for the rights of farmers.

Actually I am one of the lucky ones who refused to sign it. There are still a few and some are reported to have still been paid their bonuses just in exchange for not leaving. Amazing how these people can make exceptions when their backs are to the wall.

Farmer Ed · 06-06-2016 03:49PM

rangler1 wrote: »

Will you sing a different tune ffs, Farmers are well able to do their own research before they sign up to something.
Coops agreed to buy all your milk ....haven't heard of anyone being refused, is there some other part of the agreement they're not abiding by.
After signing a document is a funny time to be questioning the legality of same.....sounds like a cop out on your part

Rangler is it any wonder that farm incomes are in such a state and Co cops have been getting such a soft ride. When someone who professes to be a former country chairman doesn't even know that one of the most basic and fundamental rules of and dairy co op is that they are and always have been obliged to purchase all milk from cows that graze in their catchment area. The red hering that they could stop taking your milk if you didn't sign the contract. Was just that. A red hering. Shame on the so called farm organisations for even allowing them to spin that one. Bad enough if they didn't do anything. But they aided and abetted management in every effort to scare farmers in to signing the Msas. If your latest contribution is a correct representation, then the advice they gave to members was based on complete ignorance of co op law. Disgraceful to say the least!

Water John · 06-06-2016 04:34PM

So is it my understanding that Glanbia are extending the MSA of anyone who uses this bond?

That's like a football club extending the contract of a player before his present one runs out as he would be then eligible for a free transfer.
Except its very different for a tied milk supplier. I think all farmers, no matter who their processor should not sign any long term MSA.
It is not in any way in the farmers interest. I'm sure even Rangler will agree with me on that one.
Board members of all coops to be told not to produce any more long term MSA's to the members. Simple message to Coops and ICOS.

Such agreements are imbalanced and unfair. They confer no benefit to the farmer/shareholder in a normal sense.
The penalty for not signing, is in effect a dual pricing mechanism to its farmer/shareholders and thus illegal.

Farmer Ed · 06-06-2016 04:50PM

Watch: Glanbia details its new advance payment scheme for farmers @agrilandIreland http://www.agriland.ie/farming-news/122393/

Have you all seen the video? Staring what appears to be their new mascot.

So our new ministers vision for farming would appear to be, we can just all live on borrowed money and hope things will get better.

kowtow · 06-06-2016 04:57PM

Farmer Ed wrote: »

When someone who professes to be a former country chairman doesn't even know that one of the most basic and fundamental rules of and dairy co op is that they are and always have been obliged to purchase all milk from cows that graze in their catchment area.

I have often heard similar said, but I have also been told by co-ops that this is not the case - do you happen to have a link to whatever law / regulation obliges them? Would be very interested...

Farmer Ed · 06-06-2016 05:12PM

kowtow wrote: »

I have often heard similar said, but I have also been told by co-ops that this is not the case - do you happen to have a link to whatever law / regulation obliges them? Would be very interested...

I'm not sure is it contained in the 1893 industrial societies and providence act. That should be available online. But if you are a member of a co op they are obliged to give you a copy of the rule book. If they really want to be awkward about it you may have to pay a fee of something like 20 old pence. Like everything to do with co op law the whole thing is very Dickensian.

Water John · 06-06-2016 05:14PM

A parrallel Kowtow, is Private Group Water Scheme which are coops.. If its mains is passing a site location for a new dwelling, they must supply and allow that person to become a shareholder and member, because that dwelling is in their catchment. The new dwelling will not be allowed to bore their own well.
The only reason the PGWS could turn down the application is by proving that they have an inadequate supply.

Certainly Dairy Coops must take all supply from all its shareholders in normal circumstances. That is the purpose it was set up for and why the farmer is a shareholder. Giving a different price for signing extra commitments of an MSA is, tom my mind illegal, as a coop is obliged by its legal nature to treat all of its members equally.

rangler1 · 06-06-2016 06:13PM

Farmer Ed wrote: »

Rangler is it any wonder that farm incomes are in such a state and Co cops have been getting such a soft ride. When someone who professes to be a former country chairman doesn't even know that one of the most basic and fundamental rules of and dairy co op is that they are and always have been obliged to purchase all milk from cows that graze in their catchment area. The red hering that they could stop taking your milk if you didn't sign the contract. Was just that. A red hering. Shame on the so called farm organisations for even allowing them to spin that one. Bad enough if they didn't do anything. But they aided and abetted management in every effort to scare farmers in to signing the Msas. If your latest contribution is a correct representation, then the advice they gave to members was based on complete ignorance of co op law. Disgraceful to say the least!

Did you even sign it,or is it just because you have to whinge about something.In fact it reflects badly on farmers to sign and then criticise when they didn't bother to do their homework.
ifa are lobby organisation and if they are negotiating a deal it'll be pushed as far as it can and it's up to the farmer to decide and there's no one twisting their arm to sign any contract.
If you signed and are peed off now, it's you that's disgraceful looking for someone to blame, in fact it's not disgraceful...it's a joke.
If there's a legal case, i'm sure some one will challenge, but i doubt if your legal advice carries much weight. IFA will seldom go the legal route, very often if you're up before a judge you'll get '' law without justice''

kowtow · 06-06-2016 06:19PM

Farmer Ed wrote: »

Like everything to do with co op law the whole thing is very Dickensian.

I like Dickensian.

It's a bit modern for my liking, but it works.

JD115m · 06-06-2016 07:04PM

The funny thing is that milk prices haven't come down in the shop even though there is such an oversupply. The farmer takes the hit while at the moment Glanbia is making more money than ever and encouraged everybody to increase supply just to feed Belview. Know a lorry driver who said that there was delays of 3 hrs there and it hadn't even ran at full supply. That's EFFICIENT

Farmer Ed · 06-06-2016 07:18PM

rangler1 wrote: »

Did you even sign it,or is it just because you have to whinge about something.In fact it reflects badly on farmers to sign and then criticise when they didn't bother to do their homework.
ifa are lobby organisation and if they are negotiating a deal it'll be pushed as far as it can and it's up to the farmer to decide and there's no one twisting their arm to sign any contract.
If you signed and are peed off now, it's you that's disgraceful looking for someone to blame, in fact it's not disgraceful...it's a joke.
If there's a legal case, i'm sure some one will challenge, but i doubt if your legal advice carries much weight. IFA will seldom go the legal route, very often if you're up before a judge you'll get '' law without justice''

Rangler if you had read previous posts you will know I didn't sign it. But farmers as a group are increasingly unhappy that they did.
Fact. Ifa heavely promoted MSA's. Fact 2 I have always been apposed to them..

Now considering Ifa are now saying that contracts are not such a good thing.youd imagine they might actually try and do something about it as people locked in to them are getting paid less for their milk than those of us who are free to move?
I believe they may need the services of some legal people to deal with the repercussions of the departure of your much admired former general secretary anyway.

kowtow · 06-06-2016 07:23PM

What I am really surprised at, given the serious & restrictive & sometimes enduring nature of some of the MSA's - is that co-ops didn't pay a contribution (250 perhaps) from funds to every producer in order to ensure that they received independent legal advice before signing.

Nowadays that is a pretty standard step in many serious contracts, including those which terminate employment or restrict future employment, and it would have helped the processor in making sure they had a rock solid agreement.

That is the sort of thing the IFA and others should have been arguing to put in place at the time rather than waving from the sidelines.

Milk Price- Please read Mod note in post #1

Comments