What's the story with this ?
Smarter people than me saw this coming the last few years. Their theory was all the rebates and schemes related to buying inputs was to inflate the value of the PLC for the buyout.What's the story with this ?
Getting the plc out of Glanbia Ireland should benefit farmers but the price tag is too high. 40% is worth about €200m. They're using the plc share spin out as a carrot to buy votes. The Co-op is strong enough to buy out the 40% without dropping any shareholding in the plc.
as jim gogarty was told by ray burke, "will they f*ck" , whats the big panic about pushing this through ? i,m not voting for it unless there,s a public meeting and i don,t care how long i have to wait for itWill this translate into a better milk price or will it just be more of the same.
as jim gogarty was told by ray burke, "will they f*ck" , whats the big panic about pushing this through ? i,m not voting for it unless there,s a public meeting and i don,t care how long i have to wait for it
It'll be the dry shareholder votes that will get it over the line as the excessive 40% purchase price and negative implications of a reduced co-op shareholding in the plc will have little impact on their business. They will vote for the spin-out.Word on the street is it will be pushed through by the yes men and those who owe stupid amounts on their trading accounts
Shareholders who exit milk should be bought out of their shares. They don’t do the lads supplying any favours. Most young lads milking now have very few shares, where as a lad down the road that packed up milking years ago is calling the shots. Probably a controversial post for some here but I believe the lads milking cows should have the final say.It'll be the dry shareholder votes that will get it over the line as the excessive 40% purchase price and negative implications of a reduced co-op shareholding in the plc will have little impact on their business. They will vote for the spin-out.
If it's not in the rules, it can't be done, unfortunately.Shareholders who exit milk should be bought out of their shares. They don’t do the lads supplying any favours. Most young lads milking now have very few shares, where as a lad down the road that packed up milking years ago is calling the shots. Probably a controversial post for some here but I believe the lads milking cows should have the final say.
Grain growing shareholders actively supplying grain to Glanbia are ok too IMO but I'd agree, only members with skin in the game should be entitled to dictate the direction of the co-opShareholders who exit milk should be bought out of their shares. They don’t do the lads supplying any favours. Most young lads milking now have very few shares, where as a lad down the road that packed up milking years ago is calling the shots. Probably a controversial post for some here but I believe the lads milking cows should have the final say.
The founding idea behind the co-op structure is precisely that. You'd have to wonder how well and for whom these hybrid models really work. Imho the plc has been inching towards a separation for as long as I can remember. Business gets very raw when you have to answer to shareholders on the quarter.That's how a supplier co-operative society should work. they are not supposed to be investment vehicles to benefit the investor, they are supposed to be investment vehicles to benefit the supplier. That's literally the whole point of a co-op
People who complain about sharing up seem to forget that the people who started these co-ops invested a far higher proportion of their income and savings than they are asked to do.
We'll yes, but it's not simple. I'm a Lakeland supplier and shareholder. I attend the meetings and the dry shareholder votes was trashed out for years. As @Bencroy says the rules were changed and the dry shareholder really has no say in the running of the co-op. The dry shareholder came about mainly because of a huge exit of small scale dairy farmers in the 70's and 80'sThat's how a supplier co-operative society should work. they are not supposed to be investment vehicles to benefit the investor, they are supposed to be investment vehicles to benefit the supplier. That's literally the whole point of a co-op
People who complain about sharing up seem to forget that the people who started these co-ops invested a far higher proportion of their income and savings than they are asked to do.
inspiring looking chaps
We'll yes, but it's not simple. I'm a Lakeland supplier and shareholder. I attend the meetings and the dry shareholder votes was trashed out for years. As @Bencroy says the rules were changed and the dry shareholder really has no say in the running of the co-op. The dry shareholder came about mainly because of a huge exit of small scale dairy farmers in the 70's and 80's
All of these would have contributed towards the formation of the co-op at the start, so just because the stop supplying milk is it fair that the have no say in how the co-op is run.
Obviously no grain element to the business up this country.
and the lads milking the cows should insist on a 13th payment every year to match those at the top of the milk league, they could find 3.5 % of profits every year why can,t they guarantee matching the west cork gangstersShareholders who exit milk should be bought out of their shares. They don’t do the lads supplying any favours. Most young lads milking now have very few shares, where as a lad down the road that packed up milking years ago is calling the shots. Probably a controversial post for some here but I believe the lads milking cows should have the final say.