"Farmers owe wheat board $29M in overpayments"

[dirtgirl]

Agstar - obviously there is no pooling for canola - duh. However, wheat contracted under FPC/DPC contracts is not pooled either. The CWB doesn't have the foresight to see problems with how these contracts are paid out when initial prices change? Scary.

[Fransisco]

What we asked for is choice agstar.

A choice other than just the CWB. The CWB has just proven again why we need that choice, if one company is incompetent you can always go to another.

Its amazing how that simple little thing, competition, smartens everybody up.

[TOM4CWB]

Agstar77;

This CWB pooling/PPO system... the way the CWB set this up... was/is a mistake.

ADMIT IT. It cannot work.

Risk management via the CWB pool kills both pricing systems.

2003 all over again!

[d-45]

Agstar:
The CWB is not appeasing farmers with the ppo's. They are simply showing their incompetence in administering these programs.
It is disgusting that you would mock the farmers that you represent.

[chaffmeister]

Wait a minute!

What's all this talk about "appeasing free marketers"?!

I've heard stuff like this before - for some reason the Borg thinks that all these PPOs should appease those farmers that want choice.

Ritter has said it - "farmers have asked for choice and we have provided it".

Bull feathers!

As Fransisco said it, "Choice means a choice between the CWB and other buyers, all competing for your business".

The only way the CWB can provide real choice is to be voluntary. Nothing else.

The dictionary definition of voluntary:
"done, made, brought about, undertaken, etc., of one's own accord or by free choice"

NOTE THE USE OF THE WORD CHOICE.


Agstar - these programs DO NOT appease anybody! Hardcore Borg farmers don't like them because they think they dilute the pools - they take away resources from pooling activities. Pro-choice farmers don't like them because they really aren't a relevant "choice" at all.

PPOs are bastardized mock-ups of what the CWB thinks pro-choice farmers want while keeping the sacred pools intact.

Pro-choice farmers try these contracts because they believe pooling is so backward, anything should be better. (How many times have we heard or read "even with the huge discounts in the PPOs I think I might be better off than staying in the pool"?)

This malarkey about PPOs "appeasing free-marketers" is down-right offensive and ignorant, simply demonstrating how far removed the Borg is from reality.

[Fransisco]

Let me put it another way.

No matter how hard the CWB tries to 'fake the free market' <b>IT IS NOT A FREE MARKET</b> when there is only one player.

The only way you will appease free marketers is by giving them an actual free market.

The PPO's are like Diet Coke, one calorie is not enough.

[Kodiak]

agstar, instead of trying to "appease" farmers, why not try "competing"?

I can guarantee you the CWB would improve its administration, marketing, efficiency, AND yes, its public relations, once it began operating in a competitive milieu. Suddenly it would value accountability and become responsive to the needs of the farmers it wanted to serve. It would, for the first time in a long time, begin to ‘add value’.

There’s nothing like a change in mindset to accomplish what is necessary. ‘Faking it’, as Fran calls it, wouldn’t even enter into the thought process of CWB management - at least the ones that survived the transition. The ‘fakers’ would be asked to find a new way to make a living elsewhere. A new mindset would come into play as soon as it was realized that customers were no longer forced through the CWB door.

Now before you respond with the script - that “the CWB can’t compete without elevators” - you better come up with something better. Other than fanatic single desk adherents, no one believes that. Millions of tonnes of grain business worth billions of dollars is conducted by firms without elevators, truck fleets, or railcars. The CWB can do it too. It just needs to want to.

‘Change management’ is not just a couple of words. It’s a real concept, employed daily by businesses all over the world. The CWB needs to get a hold of it, understand it, and utilize it. Without it agstar, the CWB is headed to oblivion.

[LWeber]

How has the contingency fund stayed out of this discussion?

Follow the money...

[rockhound]

Out of 28 replies 0n this thread only two, stubblejumper and agstar, don`t understand what appeasing farmers with marketing choice means. thats why the cwb is in trouble and will be untill the government removes this evil cwb act. Lets move forward and the directors of the board can do it tomorrow if only one director of the super eight would do his duty and vote for free licenses for everyone. Lets not discriminate between Canadian farmers. Lets have equal opportunity for all in our agriculture industry.

[Kodiak]

Weber, how can we "follow the money?" That would mean an audit is needed. A full and transparent one. One the shareholders can demand and direct through their Board of Directors.

If the shareholders can't choose the audit firm and force their Board to use - well, is it really a useful excercise? When things are going well, things are going well. However when they're not - that's when tried and tested procedures better be followed.

Ever hear of "shareholders' rights"? One of them is the right to choose the auditor and receive the full report.