Memo 2 ~ Why this website?
Written 12th February 2007
Its principal objective has been stated as the constructive hope of encouraging MVF members to take a more active interest in the Cooperative of which they are the owners. Those members who hold Ordinary shares also have the responsibility for electing Board members.
To achieve this objective, the content of the website will seek to provide some alternative analyses and views, whenever it is felt that MVF presentations to members may be unclear, imbalanced, or even misleading. Important examples of these are provided in Memos 5, 6, 7 and 8.
But why, readers may well ask, did you not bring your concerns to the attention of the Directors or Chief Executive? My answer to that is that I did throughout 2006 – by letters dated 18th January, 28th February (with a post-script dated March 5th) and then finally 24th June - with several intervening telephone requests for replies. While the response to the latter was that a written reply would be coming –nothing ever materialized!
One question about the Pye Bibby acquisition which I thought would surely evoke a response (in my Feb 28th letter) was “Would it not be preferable for us to demonstrate the soundness of the long term strategy, by 'telling it like it is' and explaining our expectation that Southern Valley Feeds (SVF) may well be in the red for its first 5 years? Surely this would be better than compromising our integrity, and our credibility, by misleading our own members?”
The continuing absence of any response did not inspire me with much confidence that the record would be put straight in the 2006 Reports and Accounts. Regrettably the same bizarre accounting was still employed., giving members the impression that SVF loss for ‘05/’06 was only £186,000. See Memos 5 and 7 for alternative, more realistic appraisals, of the full extent of this loss.
One other question from readers may be “Why do you call your website Mole Valley Farmers Cooperative?” This stems from my belief that in those earlier years referred to in Memo 1, Mole Valley acquired a particular reputation with its farmer members for the substantial discounts available on a wide range of farming inputs. Conversely, we were regarded with hostility by the agricultural merchanting community, ironically with particular dislike by the established cooperatives. Our pricing policy to members involved a quantity rate structure but apart from this there were no exceptions – prices, like payment terms, were absolutely non-negotiable. This enabled us to go to print in the Newsletter with price information in a market-place where previously every deal was secret.
Our constant battles over the years to break down restrictive trade practices was appreciated by our members, especially when associated with sound advice as to appropriate and economical usage. The key criterion for our activities was our farmer members’ financial benefit. This was best exemplified by Gordon Newman’s contribution in introducing the best innovations in ruminant nutrition. For example, ‘Old Moley’s’ tireless promotion of ‘straights’ and blends did not endear him to our mill managers, when they saw “their” compound tonnages being eroded. The MVF overview of this was that our farmer member interests must come first, with the company’s interests taking second place. This example, I believe illustrates the fundamental difference between a true cooperative and a conventional commercial entity. If MVF is to regain its true cooperative credentials it must re-instate its ethos as a key component of overall policy.
The name chosen for this website reflects the optimistic
hope that this is achievable, if a sufficient proportion of MVF shareholders
want it to happen - and say so loud
and clear.