Milk Price III

jaymla627

mahoney_j wrote: »

If the new entrants stay wanting some of the cake they should have to pay and a lot more than established suppliers ,only fair tbh lot of these new entrants are comming in with big land base ,big cow no’s and in case of a lot of converted beef tillage operations very hefty bps Cheque .
As an established supplier I’ve bought/leased quota and dm contributing to a revolving fund as part of my share up to match supply I think it’s very unfair that new guys comming in and supplying huge volumes are only making same contribution as I am currently

Glanbia will be forced to, within 15 miles of us can reel of 7 plus start-ups of new entrants and second units each carrying our going to be over 400 odd cows and all supplying glanbia, they hadn’t dreamed of picking up as much extra supply as quick

mahoney_j

jaymla627 wrote: »

Glanbia will be forced to, within 15 miles of us can reel of 7 plus start-ups of new entrants and second units each carrying our going to be over 400 odd cows and all supplying glanbia, they hadn’t dreamed of picking up as much extra supply as quick

Big questions been asked in arrabawn too .even with our 30 million been spent muttering of simillar stuff re all this milk and new suppliers

jaymla627

Gawddawggonnit wrote: »

Ah no!
Wasn’t the whole ‘expansion ad infinitum’ the foundation of the glory years post quota?
Cooperative system falls down if some become ‘more equal’ than others...?
If ‘quotas’ under a different guise come into play then the posturing of the last ten years is farcical.
Truly farcical...making it up as you go?

The English Arla supplier who had facilities for 3200 plus cows but destocked down to 300 only keeping them as a requirement of keeping the grant aid that went towards his dairy unit got his buy in based on the 300 he was milking last year after securing co-op membership back sending 78,000 liters a day now, that wasn’t to much in tune with the co-operative spirit haha, some stroke to pull but has left a lot of suppliers rightly pissed off

Buford T. Justice XIX

https://twitter.com/DINtoday/status/1167095806954004481?s=19

freedominacup

Gawddawggonnit wrote: »

Cooperative system falls down if some become ‘more equal’ than others...?

A basic fundamental principle. There can be no give on it. One share or a million. One vote. No problem with needing to share up to participate fully as a supplier it was always that way. New shares should be issued to new members. A time restriction on receiving the benefits of share spinouts could be considered on new shares but unless someone belonging to you was at the first meeting to set up your local creamery the bones of a century ago we're all Johnny come latelys to some degree. I'm the third generation to hold this farms shares. In the family at least 70 years.

6600

GrasstoMilk wrote: »

A friend who supllies them says its 29.5 plus scc bonus ?

It's 28.5 plus 5.4% vat is 30.04. Another 0.53 cent for the scc but this is not solids adjusted. For someone supplying 500,000 litres the difference over Glanbia comes to €5,000.

Gawddawggonnit

freedominacup wrote: »

A basic fundamental principle. There can be no give on it. One share or a million. One vote. No problem with needing to share up to participate fully as a supplier it was always that way. New shares should be issued to new members. A time restriction on receiving the benefits of share spinouts could be considered on new shares but unless someone belonging to you was at the first meeting to set up your local creamery the bones of a century ago we're all Johnny come latelys to some degree. I'm the third generation to hold this farms shares. In the family at least 70 years.

+1.
Sacrosanct.

K.G.

freedominacup wrote: »

A basic fundamental principle. There can be no give on it. One share or a million. One vote. No problem with needing to share up to participate fully as a supplier it was always that way. New shares should be issued to new members. A time restriction on receiving the benefits of share spinouts could be considered on new shares but unless someone belonging to you was at the first meeting to set up your local creamery the bones of a century ago we're all Johnny come latelys to some degree. I'm the third generation to hold this farms shares. In the family at least 70 years.

But the question is should a new supplier pay full wack for everything or should every supplier be entitled to supply so much and after that everyone pays for the extra if you know what i mean.

Buford T. Justice XIX

K.G. wrote: »

But the question is should a new supplier pay full wack for everything or should every supplier be entitled to supply so much and after that everyone pays for the extra if you know what i mean.

Seeing as the Co-op is owned by its members, shouldn't the new entrants have to share up to an equivalent degree to the value of the business they now own part of?

Otherwise, they are getting a gift of ownership at a cost to existing suppliers?

K.G.

Buford T. Justice VI wrote: »

Seeing as the Co-op is owned by its members, shouldn't the new entrants have to share up to an equivalent degree to the value of the business they now own part of?

Otherwise, they are getting a gift of ownership at a cost to existing suppliers?

Why so .chances are their parents or whoever were milk suppliers in the past and passed their investment on to you when they left dairying.

Buford T. Justice XIX

K.G. wrote: »

Why so .chances are their parents or whoever were milk suppliers in the past and passed their investment on to you when they left dairying.

Then their shares would be passed on too?

Mooooo

In dairygold its so many shares per x amount supplied. If you are at that fine if not 0.5c is deducted till you are. Is it not the same in other coops.?
Revolving fund then is also taken when price is above 30c of 0.5c per litre. That his due to be paid back next year, altho no doubt it'll be twisted to keep us on the bottom of the milk price

K.G.

Buford T. Justice VI wrote: »

Then their shares would be passed on too?

Yes but in many cases patronage schemes have diluted that value of thise shares.in a coop etos e everyone should be equal and alot goes to when you start or finish the clock.im sure many coops ha e dry shareholders who are if you like lending their capital or potential real value of their shares to existing suppliers.

mahoney_j

Buford T. Justice VI wrote: »

Seeing as the Co-op is owned by its members, shouldn't the new entrants have to share up to an equivalent degree to the value of the business they now own part of?

Otherwise, they are getting a gift of ownership at a cost to existing suppliers?

100% yes and at the scale a lot of them are comming in at they should have to pay more

Water John

It isn't long ago Glanbia and Dairygold wanted to cannibalise Arrabawn in their hunger for extra milk supplies.

freedominacup

Buford T. Justice VI wrote: »

Seeing as the Co-op is owned by its members, shouldn't the new entrants have to share up to an equivalent degree to the value of the business they now own part of?

Otherwise, they are getting a gift of ownership at a cost to existing suppliers?

Which the other suppliers were fully aware of when they signed up. New entrants need no more shares than has been deemed necessary for established suppliers. In glanbia it's around 2300 shares. These should be issued to new suppliers. As I said already unless your shares were amongst the first issued when the local creamery was established you're a Johnny come lately but here's the thing none of the people with the vision to get involved at the start would ever have been small minded enough to suggest that new suppliers pay any premium to join the co-op. What gives you the right to subvert this?

freedominacup

K.G. wrote: »

But the question is should a new supplier pay full wack for everything or should every supplier be entitled to supply so much and after that everyone pays for the extra if you know what i mean.

There are no questions that try to put new suppliers in a separate category. The name for the type of company we're talking about is the giveaway on that.
Co-operative. See. Very simple. You want to change to another business structure, fine, put it to a vote. One shareholder one vote. Another founding principle.

Buford T. Justice XIX

freedominacup wrote: »

Which the other suppliers were fully aware of when they signed up. New entrants need no more shares than has been deemed necessary for established suppliers. In glanbia it's around 2300 shares. These should be issued to new suppliers. As I said already unless your shares were amongst the first issued when the local creamery was established you're a Johnny come lately but here's the thing none of the people with the vision to get involved at the start would ever have been small minded enough to suggest that new suppliers pay any premium to join the co-op. What gives you the right to subvert this?

How am I subverting it, freedom? I am questioning the different structures set up around the country to return value to whomever.

The Co-ops were set up to get a better price for milk back into farmers hands. The dividend income from profits from the other activities are a relatively recent occurance.

Do you not see a conflict of interest in a situation where the full value of the milk is not being returned to those milking the cows but is given instead to those not milking the cows? Returns by milk price versus returns by dividend?

In Kerry, many would think that Kerry could easily return one or two cent more for the liter of milk, 3 cent even, and not adversely affect the functioning of the business. Instead, a bog standard basic price is paid for milk and we're told the premium is returned by dividend. Which is fine as long as the shares are held by those milking the cows. And it was for a generation but that situation has changed. So it could be argued that, as dairy farmers are a smaller and smaller proportion of shareholders, more and more of the milk price is being returned to non milking shareholders.

In Glanbia, it's the opposite. As more and more shares are being sold to support milk price through the piggybank, the dry shareholders are finding their assets being eroded in favour of milk suppliers being paid a proper price for their milk.

Kerry are in the middle of resolving this atm but that same situation is coming down the line fast for Glanbia shareholders and there doesn't seem to be any brakes being applied.

So does the processor stick to its original purpose and pay a good milk price or sacrifice milk price in favour of shareholders dividends?

jaymla627

freedominacup wrote: »

Which the other suppliers were fully aware of when they signed up. New entrants need no more shares than has been deemed necessary for established suppliers. In glanbia it's around 2300 shares. These should be issued to new suppliers. As I said already unless your shares were amongst the first issued when the local creamery was established you're a Johnny come lately but here's the thing none of the people with the vision to get involved at the start would ever have been small minded enough to suggest that new suppliers pay any premium to join the co-op. What gives you the right to subvert this?

Co-op is under no obligation to take on new members though, if the processing capacity doesn’t exist to cater for any new entrant milk going forward, rationally the door needs to be shut on new suppliers, one of the reasons New Zealand dairy farmers and fonterra have managed to get themselves into so much debt was fonterra weren’t allowed to refuse any new suppliers who wanted to supply milk so you ended up with a situation where billions of dollars where spent on processing and farmers converting farms to dairying all on the back of what we are seeing in Ireland today with the returns from beef/tillage on the floor farmers are flocking to milk

freedominacup

jaymla627 wrote: »

Co-op is under no obligation to take on new members though, if the processing capacity doesn’t exist to cater for any new entrant milk going forward, rationally the door needs to be shut on new suppliers, one of the reasons New Zealand dairy farmers and fonterra have managed to get themselves into so much debt was fonterra weren’t allowed to refuse any new suppliers who wanted to supply milk so you ended up with a situation where billions of dollars where spent on processing and farmers converting farms to dairying all on the back of what we are seeing in Ireland today with the returns from beef/tillage on the floor farmers are flocking to milk

Yes they are. It's in the articles of association. Providing the supplier is in the recognized catchment and is a bone fide supplier. What you're on about is known as pulling the ladder up after yourself. You used the ladder provided by someone else to get where you are and now want to take it away so no one else can use it because it might reduce some of the advantages you availed of.

K.G.

freedominacup wrote: »

Yes they are. It's in the articles of association. Providing the supplier is in the recognized catchment and is a bone fide supplier. What you're on about is known as pulling the ladder up after yourself. You used the ladder provided by someone else to get where you are and now want to take it away so no one else can use it because it might reduce some of the advantages you availed of.

Good to see people haven't forgot coop principle s free

Mortelaro

Situations evolve
What was appropriate 60 years ago certainly isn't today

Say my name

This is nearly as bad as the school bus discussion on other media forums with new pupils being told there's no room on the bus and the bus passing by their gate. :pac:

And then their poor blighters of parents have to drive them in to school.
Except in this discussion the new pupils may have to stay at home!

Panch18

K.G. wrote: »

Good to see people haven't forgot coop principle s free

I read a poster on another forum who i believe is involved in the West Cork coops some way and he said that the Coops will be stopping taking new entrants in a couple of years

Any basis in that?

whelan2

Say my name wrote: »

This is nearly as bad as the school bus discussion on other media forums with new pupils being told there's no room on the bus and the bus passing by their gate. :pac:

And then their poor blighters of parents have to drive them in to school.
Except in this discussion the new pupils may have to stay at home!

This is totally off topic, it happened here. The only reason was so the bus company could get a second bus on the route. Pure bull **** of the highest order. Happens every year in some area. Bus eireann never answered the phone either.

freedominacup

Mortelaro wrote: »

Situations evolve
What was appropriate 60 years ago certainly isn't today

You're dead right. A lot of the people who founded the co-ops hadn't a pot to piss in but they put whatever they could into getting them off the ground. Now lads who have benefited from the efforts of these people want to take their toys away driven by the same sort of greed that motivates a spoilt child.

The post mistress in Kilmeaden famously put in the equivalent of most of a year's wages for a working man into the initial capital of the creamery there. The only return she could have expected was some increase in her own turnover if there was an increase in prosperity in the local area. She it would appear had an understanding of and belief in what a co-op is about.

jaymla627

freedominacup wrote: »

You're dead right. A lot of the people who founded the co-ops hadn't a pot to piss in but they put whatever they could into getting them off the ground. Now lads who have benefited from the efforts of these people want to take their toys away driven by the same sort of greed that motivates a spoilt child.

The post mistress in Kilmeaden famously put in the equivalent of most of a year's wages for a working man into the initial capital of the creamery there. The only return she could have expected was some increase in her own turnover if there was an increase in prosperity in the local area. She it would appear had an understanding of and belief in what a co-op is about.

Can’t be just a open shop re the co-op supplying the processing ability for new entrants coming in with 100’s of cows day one, would have zero issues with say the average milk supply sent per supplier for 2018 been the amount of milk a new entrant could supply with the 2000 share buy-in, and after this you pay a charge for every litre after this, our should it be a free for all like could easily develop with the need for another couple of hundred million spent on processing and the knock on effects to milk price

mf240

freedominacup wrote: »

Yes they are. It's in the articles of association. Providing the supplier is in the recognized catchment and is a bone fide supplier. What you're on about is known as pulling the ladder up after yourself. You used the ladder provided by someone else to get where you are and now want to take it away so no one else can use it because it might reduce some of the advantages you availed of.

I think we should pull up the ladder immediately

Mortelaro

Many new suppliers wouldn't mind a new supplier tax for the required new plant anyway because they think this monthly milk cheque is a gift..
They just can't believe this monthly windfall...
So a few of them have said to me anyway

I guess they'll know all about it at 19cpl

Water John

If a coop cannot provide the service for a new member they are not obliged to take them on.
A coop exists to advance the interests of its members. It is not under an obligation to 'potential members'.

Some misunderstand coop principles.