Silver Fern Farms money raising a thinly veiled glossover of Richmond fiasco

You have to feel for SFF shareholders. Now CEO Keith Cooper is asking them to stump up with $128 million, apparently in the name of forward progress in the UK consumer market.

Their hard fought co-operative, designed to protect their interests is fast becoming what they term a 'hybrid co-operative'. The translation for that is a co-operative moving away from what it was designed for and if this share restructuring goes ahead you would have to assume that it is only a matter of time before outside shareholders gain some status in the company, even if Cooper is promising that won't happen now.

But why do the restructuring in the first place?

Overcommitment.

First SFF tries to wrangle the money out of PGG Wrightson, now it's talking all this lovely juvely touchy feely rubbish about needing to be a 'fully integrated market-led company'. Come on, it all looks a bit desperate and more than a little co-incidental in the light of the lack of cash injection from the failed merger with PGG.

Wouldn't it be fantastic if the PR doctors just for once let go of the spin and spoke the honest truth. In SFF's case the statement would read something like this:
"SFF would like to advise that it is charging farmers an extra $128 million in shares and will be trying to find outside investors as well, due to the balls up it made several years ago when those in charge decided that SFF should buy Richmond at all costs. Because of this SFF has been in the poo financially for some time and as you know PGG Wrightson didn't end up joining the party so you, our loyal shareholders will have to foot the bill. But don't worry...we won't sell your co-operative rights down the road just yet...after all farmers are our business...and consumers...flashy UK consumers..."

Farmgirl hopes that SFF farmer shareholders voice their concerns over the restructuring as it is more than a little flawed.

It's funny isn't it how CEO's and directors are paid to go into a company and grow the business and make it financially stronger, yet end up making it bigger and weaker...think US companies answering to DC at the moment. The NZ example in agriculture is not as far apart from that as we might like to think...

Farmers tired of hearing the same old speel from the top

Farmgirl was more than a little dismissive of David Carter's speech to the Federated Farmers conference this week.

He told us to, "adopt new ideas, abandon old ways of thinking and embrace different farming methods"...blah, blah, blah.

This sentence has been trotted out by every agricultural minister since butter was churned by hand. It means nothing and it's not helpful.

When will Carter and his fellow ministers realise that this kind of talk is nothing but condescending as it suggests today's farmers are slow on the uptake and are not looking towards the future.

Farmgirl suggests it's not farmers who need to embrace different methods but more the companies that represent them and the politicians who continue to impede progress by whacking on costs at the farm gate year in, year out with thinly veiled bureaucracy - Kyoto being one such example.

Mr Carter and others that repeat these meaningless phrases (Anderton was equally as good at that - his tongue could roll off thousands of them in a week) regarding the need for farmers to adopt new ideas would do well to visit the Young Farmer Contest in Palmerston North today and talk to this latest generation of farmers. Farmgirl thinks they would teach him a thing or two.

Light Relief - the whoopsies that the camera caught!

Sometimes you just know you shouldn't get out of bed!

Young Farmer Contest wide open this year

Right about now seven young men will be shovelling their nerves into a suitcase and making their way to Palmerston North to face agriculture's ultimate challenge - the Young Farmer Contest.

This year's contestants are all 'first timers' at the Grand Final, so it will be something special to watch and be part of.

What is striking about this year's bunch of bright young things is that most of the contestants do jobs 'off the farm' as well as on it, a marked change from the early days of the contest.

Some have background in rural banking and consultancy work, most have qualifications from Lincoln - showing that today's farmers are better educated and inducted to the world outside the farm than ever before.

Farmgirl feels for every one of them as they prepare for the theory day tomorrow. Having experience the highs and lows of competition as a partner, she well understands how much work and preparation has been undertaken in order for the contestants to front.

It truly is a magnificent spectacle for agriculture and a marvelous springboard for leadership within our sector.

And who will come up trumps?

Farmgirl has heard that East Coast's Mark Guscott may be the one to watch but you never know - Southerners have had more than their fair share of the title over the years so it would be unwise to rule out Otago/Southland's Richard Copland and of course the North Island region's stronghold in Waikato/Bay of Plenty's Andrew Morris.

Be sure to watch the dramatic conclusion on Saturday night, TV 1 at 10.15pm and support our agricultural showpiece.

More annihilation of British Farmers rights

Our poor old British counterparts are suffering yet more draconian public whims with the news this week that a dairy farmer who happened to be grazing his cows in a field with a public access walkway through it, will face $1 million pounds in damages for injuries received by a walker after she was attacked by cattle in Cumbria in 2003.

If ever we needed proof that the general public in Britain has gone barmy, this is it, and it goes to the very heart of why farmers here fought so hard over public access issues here recently - they saw the future - and it looks costly.

According to the Farmers Weekly UK a judge at Preston Crown Court ruled the farmer was liable because he had not properly considered the risk his cattle posed.

"Ms McKaskie (the victim), who was walking her dog across one of Mr Cameron’s fields, is claiming £1m for the injuries she sustained in the attack.While Mr Cameron is appealing against the decision, legal experts warned the judge’s decision could set a legal precedent and mean farmers having to remove cattle from fields.

However the NFU said there was nothing in law to prevent farmers putting cattle and calves in fields with public access.

"It is a concern that following a recent court case in light of the accident that there is a suggestion cattle should not be grazed in fields with footpaths,” the union’s Robert Shearsby told the BBC.

"The NFU advises its members on the requirements of the law and what should be done to minimise risks."

The ruling came after a police officer was paid £10,000 in damages by a landowner after he was trampled by a herd of cattle."

This is of course what happens when the rights of the public are put ahead of the necessity of producing food. Farmers in Britain may own the land but it seems they barely have a foothold on it, and that is why we see so many immigrating to New Zealand. Who can blame them!

Ravensdown CEO Rodney Green's job hangs on a transparency thread

Farmgirl, unlike the Radio Network, has managed to escape the bullying clutches of the CEO of Ravensdown thus far and has requested a head to head discussion through the radio forum with Rodney Green but has heard nothing yet.

It is very serious and alarming when shareholders seem to be muzzled by the head of a co-operative and are not being allowed to ask the questions that need to be asked at this point of time.

What is even more alarming is that Farmgirl has received further serious allegations against the CEO and his Board regarding some private dealings that shareholders have no idea about.

This company appears to be no longer transparent and the head of it has far too much power and seemingly a weak or frightened Board.

Farmgirl wants Mr Green to front up and answer these questions:

1 Did Ravensdown have a large cash deficit in last year's accounts from operating activities - that actually they didn't have a $40 million profit but a $40 million loss - it only looks that way due to a change of accounting standards and the favourable revaluation of foreign exchange contracts?
2 Were last year's rebates paid from borrowing, not actual profit?
3 That borrowing to pay rebates is a hugely risky venture and not one that shareholders are aware of?
4 That under these current conditions and the fact that Ravensdown is not in great shape the venture into Australia could only be construed as risky?

4a That the directors may not have been fully aware of Ravensdown's financial situation

prior to its move into Australia?
5 Have they made any million dollar plus settlements out of court in the past three years?

6 Are shareholders aware of what might have been paid via settlement out of court in the past

three years?

7 How on earth can Ravensdown be called a co-operative if its shareholders are ill informed and then threatened should they choose to ask questions?

If Farmgirl and other concerned shareholders are right about the situation with Ravnesdown, then it's time all of us did something about it, took back control of the co-operative and got rid of the rot.

This is not defamation Rodney, this is our right as concerned shareholders to publicly voice our view.

Having worked in agricultural newspapers, and knowing how companies can threaten to pull big advertising budgets if anything negative is written about them, this blog becomes vitally important.

Please, share your views, get in contact with Farmgirl if need be and keep asking these questions of your directors until you get the answers clarified.

We will not be silenced, nor will investigations be dismissed.