General secretary of the IFA on a possible €400,000 salary-Read mod note in post 2734

TITANIUM.

rangler1 wrote: »

I wouldn't support transparency because our expenses are pathetic towards the real world, and that's the next thing the members would expect to know

Jasus ranger where to begin after a statement like that!
Do you not think that the plebs that pay this money, you and me, deserve to know (and should always have known ) where how and to whom this money is going to.
Do you genuinely believe (all allegiances aside) that this is value for money?

rangler1

whelan2 wrote: »

Tbh I don't think Berkery has worked well in fbd

They're tolerating him well, he's there around 25 years now

rangler1

TITANIUM. wrote: »

Jasus ranger where to begin after a statement like that!
Do you not think that the plebs that pay this money, you and me, deserve to know (and should always have known ) where how and to whom this money is going to.
Do you genuinely believe (all allegiances aside) that this is value for money?

That's my opinion, if it wasn't the opinion of the national excutive I'd have to accept it, but whether I'd accept posts on that basis would be another story.
Value for money? well I've got back many times what I've put into it so I suppose it is

TITANIUM.

rangler1 wrote: »

That's my opinion, if it wasn't the opinion of the national excutive I'd have to accept it, but whether I'd accept posts on that basis would be another story.
Value for money? well I've got back many times what I've put into it so I suppose it is

Ah don't be silly now. Accept posts on what basis?

So you go along with it if a few men at the top table tell you to. But the opinion of the poor clowns bank rolling the whole operating doesn't matter.

I think that your to close to this really to be commenting objectively.

rangler1

TITANIUM. wrote: »

Ah don't be silly now. Accept posts on what basis?

So you go along with it if a few men at the top table tell you to. But the opinion of the poor clowns bank rolling the whole operating doesn't matter.

I think that your to close to this really to be commenting objectively.

On the basis of my payments being made known.

The executive board is a few men on the top table.
The national executive is all the co chairmen from round the country, ordinary farmers like you and I, so I accept the democratic decision of them.
I see they voted against Derek again.....will he ever learn

kowtow

frazzledhome wrote: »

I attended a meeting with a small group of farmers at which Mr Smith spoke and to say he was underwhelming is a gross understatement

I had an odd feeling that he was unlikely to be worth 400K in the real world, and that's without hearing so much as a squeak from him.

Funny that.

TITANIUM.

rangler1 wrote: »

On the basis of my payments being made known.

The executive board is a few men on the top table.
The national executive is all the co chairmen from round the country, ordinary farmers like you and I, so I accept the democratic decision of them.
I see they voted against Derek again.....will he ever learn

And I and everyone else should know exactly to the penny how much you and everyone else gets. You shouldn't be ignoring the opinions off the vast majority of the organisation and them preach to me about democracy.

RobertKK

rangler1 wrote: »

On the basis of my payments being made known.

The executive board is a few men on the top table.
The national executive is all the co chairmen from round the country, ordinary farmers like you and I, so I accept the democratic decision of them.
I see they voted against Derek again.....will he ever learn

They must have a lot to hide, that is what a lack of transparency say in this case.

Farmers want to know how their membership money and other money taken from sales is spent.

Surely as it is farmers who pay for these wages, we should know what people are getting. We can look and see what a neighbour is getting in their tax funded payments state/EU payments, but the IFA seem to think they are a special case.

It sounds like they are trying to hide a gravy train, which they are on.

Bass Reeves

DD may be wronged here he was not the first to kick this show off. That honour has to be given to Con Lucey former chief economist of the IFA who resigned from the audit committee of the IFA over it is rumoured officer renumeration rates. Con resigned over a year ago. There was a push at the time for the publication of renumeration rates but it was brushed under the table. I cannot post full url's as this is my first post however if you insert a 'w' before link details on his leaving should come up

ww.independent.ie/business/farming/resignation-of-con-lucey-provokes-unease-within-ifa-30588636.html

DD bought his motion up earlier this year below are details of the meeting. It should be noted that while the vote was lost 27-5 there was we are led to believe a large number that abstained. It should be noted that it was a show of hands vote like Charlie used to have in the good old days in FF. So you had to put your head above the parpet.

ww.agriland.ie/farming-news/unease-remains-ifa-vote-confidence-general-secretary/

The other thing to note is that often when those on supeer high wages are highlighted the use of market rates and bench marking against other on massive pay are used. As well it is often highlighted that previous incumbent's marched off into the sunset to high payed consultant/ board room work. Issue with this is that this then allows the push on of the wages of those other who are highlighted. 400K if it is true is an excessive salary to run what is a fairly small organisation in international terms. What are similar organisation heads in France and Germany earning??? In Ireland the Golden Cricle liked to be benchmarked agaist each other rather than against international peers.

_Brian

rangler1 wrote: »

That's my opinion, if it wasn't the opinion of the national excutive I'd have to accept it, but whether I'd accept posts on that basis would be another story.
Value for money? well I've got back many times what I've put into it so I suppose it is

This is as irish as it gets.
" I'm trousering some extra money so we turn a blind eye to any financial irregularities"

kowtow

Bass Reeves wrote: »

DD may be wronged here he was not the first to kick this show off. That honour has to be given to Con Lucey former chief economist of the IFA who resigned from the audit committee of the IFA over it is rumoured officer renumeration rates. Con resigned over a year ago. There was a push at the time for the publication of renumeration rates but it was brushed under the table. I cannot post full url's as this is my first post however if you insert a 'w' before link details on his leaving should come up

ww.independent.ie/business/farming/resignation-of-con-lucey-provokes-unease-within-ifa-30588636.html

DD bought his motion up earlier this year below are details of the meeting. It should be noted that while the vote was lost 27-5 there was we are led to believe a large number that abstained. It should be noted that it was a show of hands vote like Charlie used to have in the good old days in FF. So you had to put your head above the parpet.

ww.agriland.ie/farming-news/unease-remains-ifa-vote-confidence-general-secretary/

The other thing to note is that often when those on supeer high wages are highlighted the use of market rates and bench marking against other on massive pay are used. As well it is often highlighted that previous incumbent's marched off into the sunset to high payed consultant/ board room work. Issue with this is that this then allows the push on of the wages of those other who are highlighted. 400K if it is true is an excessive salary to run what is a fairly small organisation in international terms. What are similar organisation heads in France and Germany earning??? In Ireland the Golden Cricle liked to be benchmarked agaist each other rather than against international peers.

We used to regard 250k as a benchmark for the Chief Executive of a performing listed FTSE 250 company - which is a pretty high risk seat to sit in and demands 24/7 commitment. Full transparency, un-conflicted audit committee, expense declarations go without saying.

Anything else would be bonus and specifically earned many times over.

I don't remember any shortage of candidates for those positions.

Willfarman

That's not just an Irish thing! The world is the world.

rangler1

_Brian wrote: »

This is as irish as it gets.
" I'm trousering some extra money so we turn a blind eye to any financial irregularities"

Didn't turn a blind eye to anything, it all remains to be proven, as far as I know ifa's accounts are well audited and now there's a third input. Derek didn't even bother to wait for them to judge.

rangler1

_Brian wrote: »

This is as irish as it gets.
" I'm trousering some extra money so we turn a blind eye to any financial irregularities"

begudgery is as irish as it gets too

pedigree 6

rangler1 wrote: »

begudgery is as irish as it gets too

True but that's the only answer that anyone who is giving themselves a lavish lifestyle from a farmer's trade union can give.:p

rangler1

Bass Reeves wrote: »

DD may be wronged here he was not the first to kick this show off. That honour has to be given to Con Lucey former chief economist of the IFA who resigned from the audit committee of the IFA over it is rumoured officer renumeration rates. Con resigned over a year ago. There was a push at the time for the publication of renumeration rates but it was brushed under the table. I cannot post full url's as this is my first post however if you insert a 'w' before link details on his leaving should come up

ww.independent.ie/business/farming/resignation-of-con-lucey-provokes-unease-within-ifa-30588636.html

DD bought his motion up earlier this year below are details of the meeting. It should be noted that while the vote was lost 27-5 there was we are led to believe a large number that abstained. It should be noted that it was a show of hands vote like Charlie used to have in the good old days in FF. So you had to put your head above the parpet.

ww.agriland.ie/farming-news/unease-remains-ifa-vote-confidence-general-secretary/

The other thing to note is that often when those on supeer high wages are highlighted the use of market rates and bench marking against other on massive pay are used. As well it is often highlighted that previous incumbent's marched off into the sunset to high payed consultant/ board room work. Issue with this is that this then allows the push on of the wages of those other who are highlighted. 400K if it is true is an excessive salary to run what is a fairly small organisation in international terms. What are similar organisation heads in France and Germany earning??? In Ireland the Golden Cricle liked to be benchmarked agaist each other rather than against international peers.

I remember his motion to be a vote of no confidence in pat smith.....nothing to do with salaries

rangler1

pedigree 6 wrote: »

True but that's the only answer that anyone who is giving themselves a lavish lifestyle from a farmer's trade union can give.:p

so you're accusing me of taking extra money from ifa too.....get a life will you

blue5000

I voted 'no confidence' in IdFA last year when I cancelled my sub and stopped levies. After reading this thread I'm happy to be out of it. I think the pigs in overcoats in Animal Farm is no longer a work of fiction.

rangler1

blue5000 wrote: »

I voted 'no confidence' in IdFA last year when I cancelled my sub and stopped levies. After reading this thread I'm happy to be out of it. I think the pigs in overcoats in Animal Farm is no longer a work of fiction.

We'll see what's proven, Pat Smith turned around the finances of ifa, we went from bucket collections outside chapels to where we are now mostly under his charge. He also has no input into his salary and the begrudgers have now insisted we have 3 audits

pedigree 6

rangler1 wrote: »

so you're accusing me of taking extra money from ifa too.....get a life will you

Back at ye. Ah god not everything is about you.
I'm just saying a farmer's trade union representative who take money from all milk, cattle, sheep sales in this country has to be held accountable to all the farmers in the country. That is all.
Don't be taking things so personal .....grow up.

Username John

There needs to be transparency, I dont see why there isnt, but thats a different debate maybe...

I think lads on both sides need to realise...
- 400k is too much, I dont know what the figure should be. But it does need to be realistic too.
- You cant expect lads to work for fcuk all, just cos lads farming are making fcuk all a lot of the time.

We'll see what comes out in the next few weeks I guess, if anything. But if nothing is confirmed, then it would be worse for the IFA I think.

And I am not a member of the IFA, dont have any axe to grind. This all makes no oddds to me whatsoever really...

rangler1

Username John wrote: »

There needs to be transparency, I dont see why there isnt, but thats a different debate maybe...

I think lads on both sides need to realise...
- 400k is too much, I dont know what the figure should be. But it does need to be realistic too.
- You cant expect lads to work for fcuk all, just cos lads farming are making fcuk all a lot of the time.

We'll see what comes out in the next few weeks I guess, if anything. But if nothing is confirmed, then it would be worse for the IFA I think.

And I am not a member of the IFA, dont have any axe to grind. This all makes no oddds to me whatsoever really...

fair comment

Willfarman

rangler1 wrote: »

We'll see what's proven, Pat Smith turned around the finances of ifa, we went from bucket collections outside chapels to where we are now mostly under his charge. He also has no input into his salary and the begrudgers have now insisted we have 3 audits

Was it just buckets ye were collecting or did ye collect mops as well..

Back in the day when the ifa used to have to throw fundraisers and the like they were a powerful lobby. Now the finances are in the clover but the organisation now has as much political punch as the ica.

blue5000

rangler1 wrote: »

We'll see what's proven, Pat Smith turned around the finances of ifa, we went from bucket collections outside chapels to where we are now mostly under his charge. He also has no input into his salary and the begrudgers have now insisted we have 3 audits

Ya, we'll see alright. There's no smoke without fire. Are we going to see these audit results in da comic?

adam14

I see they voted against Derek again.....will he ever learn

At least the man is trying to expose to the ordinary farmer the shambles that is the IFA.

rangler1

Willfarman wrote: »

Was it just buckets ye were collecting or did ye collect mops as well..

Back in the day when the ifa used to have to throw fundraisers and the like they were a powerful lobby. Now the finances are in the clover but the organisation now has as much political punch as the ica.

Yea farmer vote is useless now, you wouldn't blame politicians for not listening, a lot more votes to be picked up else where.
we're going extinct

RobertKK

rangler1 wrote: »

We'll see what's proven, Pat Smith turned around the finances of ifa, we went from bucket collections outside chapels to where we are now mostly under his charge. He also has no input into his salary and the begrudgers have now insisted we have 3 audits

Why are you so defensive?

Should the general secretary of the finance ministry or the general secretary in the ministry for agriculture get €400.000 a year?

The thing is people can say the general secretary of the IFA gets €400k because we don't know for sure, and the IFA does nothing to dispel the talk.

rangler1

RobertKK wrote: »

Why are you so defensive?

Should the general secretary of the finance ministry or the general secretary in the ministry for agriculture get €400.000 a year?

The thing is people can say the general secretary of the IFA gets €400k because we don't know for sure, and the IFA does nothing to dispel the talk.

There's a way of making decisions, they're farmers, they won't be bullied into a decision they don't support

RobertKK

rangler1 wrote: »

There's a way of making decisions, they're farmers, they won't be bullied into a decision they don't support

I am a farmer, my payments I receive from the EU/Irish state are there to be seen on a public website. I don't feel bullied that it is there without my consent, as fellow taxpayers here and across Europe have contributed to it

Why should we bother paying a membership or levies to the IFA if they think letting us know the salaries and how the money is spent is bullying which is what you are implying.
Farmers want transparency, not excuses that transparency is bullying.

Why should we pay a membership into an unaccountable black hole from a financial viewpoint, and where transparency is seen as something bad?

rangler1

RobertKK wrote: »

I am a farmer, my payments I receive from the EU/Irish state are there to be seen on a public website. I don't feel bullied that it is there without my consent, as fellow taxpayers here and across Europe have contributed to it

Why should we bother paying a membership or levies to the IFA if they think letting us know the salaries and how the money is spent is bullying which is what you are implying.
Farmers want transparency, not excuses that transparency is bullying.

Why should we pay a membership into an unaccountable black hole from a financial viewpoint, and where transparency is seen as something bad?

It was the levy last year, now this, I'm happy enough with the way it's been handled and obviously Derek deane isn't getting the support so the status quo will remain. branch agms are coming up so you know how to change the management.....but then you won't will you :rolleyes:

RobertKK

rangler1 wrote: »

It was the levy last year, now this, I'm happy enough with the way it's been handled and obviously Derek deane isn't getting the support so the status quo will remain. branch agms are coming up so you know how to change the management.....but then you won't will you :rolleyes:

I don't think the IFA learned anything from the presidential elections where voter turnout near halved.
It is quite clear that a lot of farmers are unhappy with the IFA and wouldn't waste their time going to an IFA vote, if I go nothing changes, I don't know the people and I don't believe any would be running on a reduce their benefits campaign with full transparency.

If you are happy enough with how it has been dealt with, then how much is the general secretary's salary?

Maybe Derek Deane isn't getting the support as those voting against him are playing a longer game of 'not rocking the boat'.
The IFA has become a stepping stone to other jobs, not in a lot of people's interest who have ambition to step up and make a stand, being a whistle blower is looked down upon by some.

rangler1

RobertKK wrote: »

I don't think the IFA learned anything from the presidential elections where voter turnout near halved.
It is quite clear that a lot of farmers are unhappy with the IFA and wouldn't waste their time going to an IFA vote, if I go nothing changes, I don't know the people and I don't believe any would be running on a reduce their benefits campaign with full transparency.

If you are happy enough with how it has been dealt with, then how much is the general secretary's salary?

Maybe Derek Deane isn't getting the support as those voting against him are playing a longer game of 'not rocking the boat'.
The IFA has become a stepping stone to other jobs, not in a lot of people's interest who have ambition to step up and make a stand, being a whistle blower is looked down upon by some.

doesn't worry me really, there's enough looking after that.
What I'd like to know I why won't con lucey meet the national exec if there's so much wrong. !!!!!!!!!:cool:
or is there???????
His messenger will look very silly if he doesn't

TITANIUM.

rangler1 wrote: »

doesn't worry me really, there's enough looking after that.
What I'd like to know I why won't con lucey meet the national exec if there's so much wrong. !!!!!!!!!:cool:
or is there???????
His messenger will look very silly if he doesn't

Lord God rangler I know that your invested in this but your so partisan. You'd have made a great soliger. Complete an utter loyalty. Blind Alligence regardless of your superiors actions.
Take off the blinkers will. Stop ignoring the obvious and trying to poke holes in the opposition. It's coming off extremely childish and is getting tiresome at this stage.

tanko

It reminds me of Bertie Ahern defending corruption in Fianna Fáil. Endless waffle.

rangler1

TITANIUM. wrote: »

Lord God rangler I know that your invested in this but your so partisan. You'd have made a great soliger. Complete an utter loyalty. Blind Alligence regardless of your superiors actions.
Take off the blinkers will. Stop ignoring the obvious and trying to poke holes in the opposition. It's coming off extremely childish and is getting tiresome at this stage.

I'm laughing all the way to the bank at that post, but for IFA my SFP would be €250/ha. ffs the difference buys some loyalty....same with the CPOs..at least 10 to 20% extra...it has set up my pension because as you know the writing's on the wall for farming. I have no superiors now, don't have to work for any more farmers. jokes on you I'm afraid

kowtow

rangler1 wrote: »

I'm laughing all the way to the bank at that post, but for IFA my SFP would be €250/ha. ffs the difference buys some loyalty....same with the CPOs..at least 10 to 20% extra...it has set up my pension because as you know the writing's on the wall for farming. I have no superiors now, don't have to work for any more farmers. jokes on you I'm afraid

Loyalty has it's place (this isn't one of them), and I'm glad the IFA have done you well, but what you say comes over as:

"I'm better off that I joined, so the IFA guys can fill their snouts with as much of your money as they want and I'll continue to defend their reputation"

rangler1

kowtow wrote: »

Loyalty has it's place (this isn't one of them), and I'm glad the IFA have done you well, but what you say comes over as:

"I'm better off that I joined, so the IFA guys can fill their snouts with as much of your money as they want and I'll continue to defend their reputation"

Hang on now I know and Derek referred to it in his letter that no one is overpaid in IFA, the controls are in place and I said in the beginning of this joke (for that's all it is) that I'd be surprised if it was right

RobertKK

rangler1 wrote: »

doesn't worry me really, there's enough looking after that.
What I'd like to know I why won't con lucey meet the national exec if there's so much wrong. !!!!!!!!!:cool:
or is there???????
His messenger will look very silly if he doesn't

Former Glanbia managing director John Moloney has been appointed to the pay committee of the IFA as the association moves to address concerns about salary scales for its top staff.

The IFA, which has more than 88,000 members and is funded by a mixture of fees, factory levies and business interests, confirmed to the Farming Independent it has moved to strengthen the remuneration committee which reviews the performance and pay of general secretary Pat Smith.

However, the IFA is still refusing to disclose details of its senior executives' salaries. It is understood that Mr Smith receives a substantial six-figure salary package.

The appointment of Mr Moloney follows calls for transparency from former IFA chief economist Con Lucey, who raised issues about accountability on salary scales when he stepped down from the IFA's audit committee last year.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/ifa-chiefs-pay-back-on-agenda-31425122.html


Maybe Con Lucey stepped down as he was getting nowhere and doesn't want to be there when the truth eventually comes out.
It is pretty damning towards the IFA the manner in which he left the IFA.

It seems Mr Lucey couldn't justify the pay that people were receiving. I am sure he met the execs before he stepped down, that obviously went nowhere and the recent votes suggest a meeting would be pointless.
Most holding a closed shop.
That article is from August of this year.
The more one looks into it, the more one wonders what are the IFA hiding.

You seem to be a person who believes the whistle blower should be the target, not the information that is being kept hidden.

RobertKK

rangler1 wrote: »

Hang on now I know and Derek referred to it in his letter that no one is overpaid in IFA, the controls are in place and I said in the beginning of this joke (for that's all it is) that I'd be surprised if it was right

Surely you would like an open and transparent IFA so this 'joke' is either proven wrong or it is indeed a very bad joke that someone is indeed in the IFA and paid €400,000.

pedigree 6

How did this subject get to 7 pages?
Publish the wages end of.

rangler1

RobertKK wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/ifa-chiefs-pay-back-on-agenda-31425122.html


Maybe Con Lucey stepped down as he was getting nowhere and doesn't want to be there when the truth eventually comes out.
It is pretty damning towards the IFA the manner in which he left the IFA.

It seems Mr Lucey couldn't justify the pay that people were receiving. I am sure he met the execs before he stepped down, that obviously went nowhere and the recent votes suggest a meeting would be pointless.
Most holding a closed shop.
That article is from August of this year.
The more one looks into it, the more one wonders what are the IFA hiding.

You seem to be a person who believes the whistle blower should be the target, not the information that is being kept hidden.

Con luceys issues must be in that secret letter and if so. who told the indo....not hard to guess.
I'd have more faith in national treasurer than whistle blower but time will tell there.
he had his knife in GS all year and then this, so I suppose it was a bit of the 'boy who cried wolf' syndrome, at this stage DDs letter should've come from someone else with more cred

Brown Podzol

Surely all salaries and benefits for senior staff and remuneration and expenses for officers should be published. Be a one day wonder anyway but would be out in the open and IFA couldn't be accused of hiding anything. The same goes for the co-ops. Senior management and board remuneration not disclosed even though it is mandatory for listed companies.

rangler1

Brown Podzol wrote: »

Surely all salaries and benefits for senior staff and remuneration and expenses for officers should be published. Be a one day wonder anyway but would be out in the open and IFA couldn't be accused of hiding anything. The same goes for the co-ops. Senior management and board remuneration not disclosed even though it is mandatory for listed companies.

you're not going to fill too may voluntary posts if you publish their expenses, I wouldn't like it anyway.

danjoe

Whatever about the salaries Ifa pay their staff , it might be better to hire a few pr gurus than let a rep from Galway onto radio 1 on Saturday morning last and have him pulverised by a fellow who was totally anti-farmers, public opinion is everything!!!

kevthegaff

IFA, Fai, Fifa all have a few things in common. Large pay packets, expenses, no transparency...

frazzledhome

kevthegaff wrote: »

IFA, Fai, Fifa all have a few things in common. Large pay packets, expenses, no transparency...

Lol

alps

Brown Podzol wrote: »

Surely all salaries and benefits for senior staff and remuneration and expenses for officers should be published. Be a one day wonder anyway but would be out in the open and IFA couldn't be accused of hiding anything. The same goes for the co-ops. Senior management and board remuneration not disclosed even though it is mandatory for listed companies.

"You want answers?"


"I want the truth"


"You can't handle the truth"

Base price

I read the Agriland article earlier this week and I was aghast at the remuneration figure that was quoted. I then presumed that the figure included various expenses. Time will tell what the breakdown is.
Irrespective of what the breakdown is I have to hold my hands up and admit that we (as IFA members) were remiss for not ensuring more financial transparency within the organisation over the years and I think the same can be said for other members/subscribers.
In our innocence and ignorance we rolled with the status quo presuming the lads wearing the suits were working for our behalf and had our backs covered. After all we were paying in subs and levies.
Seems to me that the "suits" were looking after their own financial business :mad: and have lost sight of true cause - IFA's founding principles.
I do not include voluntary committee members in the above. Bless them, they have worked hard over the years for the cause.
I reckon that both my Grandparents, their siblings/children and deceased offspring are doing cartwheels in their graves. Their efforts, along with thousands of others spawned the IFA.
I wonder how they would feel about the current organisation.

kowtow

kevthegaff wrote: »

IFA, Fai, Fifa all have a few things in common. Large pay packets, expenses, no transparency...

But only two of them are actually paid to talk balls.

mf240