What do you think

[cowman]

Lots of arguement for an Alberta location. After numerous invitations only Ag ministers from B.C., SASK, and MAN. have sat with BIG C to discuss anything. Maybe Shirley is still holding her wing over her poor little ABP, and CCA boys who don't like critisism, but sure know how to dole it out when it comes to BIG C.

A suggestion of a sunset clause has been attached to the plant proposal, but also thoughts of more infrustructure if and when profits are made. Other provinces etc.
Lots of details to be worked out, but I think the premise is good, and it sounds like you do too cowman.

[kato]

Would it be able to borrow from the old grain Pool model? I remember well how we used to go to the Pool first for our inputs and grain sales before talking to anyone else.

When the Manitoba Pool sold out to become Agricore, they underestimated the loyalty factor among the old Pool membership. I know we don't even deal there any more for crop inputs.

A new plant set up as a co-op would probably have the same member loyalty factor the old Pools had. That has to be a plus.

[BFW]

It seems to me that the feeding industry (whether backgrounding or finishing) will end up the majority shareholder of this "cow" plant as they generate the most checkoff dollars. Could there be a potential problem here?

[gwf]

With the producer financed packing facility, the proposal suggests that the producers would be given the option of whether the financial structure would be a public company or a Coop. The main thought to remember is that, a Coop has one member; one vote and the value of a producer’s equity will be equal to the value of one vote only. If the facility is a public company, your share, based on the number of cattle marketed (and levy paid) will have an intrinsic value that could be sold, or bought in relation to the capital investment in or valuation of the facility. If the plant is successful and is profitable, the value of ones shares will no doubt increase in value. If the project does not proceed, the levy funds would be returned. If the project proceeds and is not successful or is not profitable, the value of the shares will reflect this change in the value of each share.

In a public company, it is possible for someone to accumulate sufficient shares, as to gain control, but is also possible for the Board of Directors to reject or accept contributions from the levy. If levied contributions were not acceptable, those funds would be returned and would not result in shares being issued.

Most of us will be insignificant contributors though the levy process as individuals. With a mandatory levy, where everyone contributes with one purpose in mind; to increase the slaughter capacity for Canadian Beef for export, the benefits will be reflected through the marketing and barter system, and be reflected in the price paid for our cattle. One would hope that this would result in higher prices, partly and more significantly because there would be another significant buyer in the marketplace. If and when the facility was up and running, and the contributor of the levied funds felt that they wanted their money back (levied fund contribution), you would just sell the shares.

A levy contribution should be considered a risk. At half of one percent or less of the value of the sale value of an animal, there is not a lot stake, but the benefits could be very rewarding.

[cowman]

Well I guess it sounds all right...like gwf says...what have we got to lose?
I am rather dismayed at the lack of any government to step up to the plate and provide some sort of support! Doesn't even have to be much money...more of a facilator type of role? I mean they can blow money on all these really crazy ideas but not one cent or one minute of time to help get us in a position to solve this thing?
On the news last night they said the cow herd grew by about one million head last year in Canada! Now we all knew that was going to happen, and we all knew if that border didn't open we were going to be compounding the problem in a big way! So today we have that many more cattle to get killed and no more packing space? The CCA solution: pay the farmer money so we can compound the problem some more??? Does this policy make any kind of sense? What are these guys thinking?