https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/576195/winston-peters-threatens-fonterra-over-sale-of-anchor-and-mainland-brands?cid=newsletter
What Fonterra plans to sell is their business. Winston Peters may
have a view on this but it is completely unacceptable to try to
threaten Fonterra with regulation because of his views. It is not the Government's role to dictate what a private owner does with their
assets.
Thankfully both Seymour and Luxon do not support Peters' regulation
proposal, so it will not happen. I particularly enjoyed Seymour's
suggestion on 4am starts and he is correct - only Fonterra's farmer-shareholders get a say on this. The ramifications of the sale
will no doubt be taken into account as any business does when they
sell such a big part of company assets.
On 2025-10-17 04:22:29 +0000, Crash said:
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/576195/winston-peters-threatens-fonterra-over-sale-of-anchor-and-mainland-brands?cid=newsletter
What Fonterra plans to sell is their business. Winston Peters may
have a view on this but it is completely unacceptable to try to
threaten Fonterra with regulation because of his views. It is not the
Government's role to dictate what a private owner does with their
assets.
Thankfully both Seymour and Luxon do not support Peters' regulation
proposal, so it will not happen. I particularly enjoyed Seymour's
suggestion on 4am starts and he is correct - only Fonterra's
farmer-shareholders get a say on this. The ramifications of the sale
will no doubt be taken into account as any business does when they
sell such a big part of company assets.
The *only* thing ever "taken into account" in big business is how much
more excessive money will go into the pockets of the management team
and the shareholders.
On 2025-10-17 04:22:29 +0000, Crash said:
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/576195/winston-peters-threatens-fonterra-over-sale-of-anchor-and-mainland-brands?cid=newsletter
What Fonterra plans to sell is their business. Winston Peters may
have a view on this but it is completely unacceptable to try to
threaten Fonterra with regulation because of his views. It is not the
Government's role to dictate what a private owner does with their
assets.
Thankfully both Seymour and Luxon do not support Peters' regulation
proposal, so it will not happen. I particularly enjoyed Seymour's
suggestion on 4am starts and he is correct - only Fonterra's
farmer-shareholders get a say on this. The ramifications of the sale
will no doubt be taken into account as any business does when they
sell such a big part of company assets.
The *only* thing ever "taken into account" in big business is how much
more excessive money will go into the pockets of the management team
and the shareholders.
On 2025-10-17 04:22:29 +0000, Crash said:If the company is private (not listed) what they do is none of our business. If
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/576195/winston-peters-threatens-fonterra-over-sale-of-anchor-and-mainland-brands?cid=newsletter
What Fonterra plans to sell is their business. Winston Peters may
have a view on this but it is completely unacceptable to try to
threaten Fonterra with regulation because of his views. It is not the
Government's role to dictate what a private owner does with their
assets.
Thankfully both Seymour and Luxon do not support Peters' regulation
proposal, so it will not happen. I particularly enjoyed Seymour's
suggestion on 4am starts and he is correct - only Fonterra's
farmer-shareholders get a say on this. The ramifications of the sale
will no doubt be taken into account as any business does when they
sell such a big part of company assets.
The *only* thing ever "taken into account" in big business is how much
more excessive money will go into the pockets of the management team
and the shareholders.
On Fri, 17 Oct 2025 18:12:22 +1300, Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com>
wrote:
On 2025-10-17 04:22:29 +0000, Crash said:
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/576195/winston-peters-threatens-fonterra-over-sale-of-anchor-and-mainland-brands?cid=newsletter
What Fonterra plans to sell is their business. Winston Peters may
have a view on this but it is completely unacceptable to try to
threaten Fonterra with regulation because of his views. It is not the
Government's role to dictate what a private owner does with their
assets.
Thankfully both Seymour and Luxon do not support Peters' regulation
proposal, so it will not happen. I particularly enjoyed Seymour's
suggestion on 4am starts and he is correct - only Fonterra's
farmer-shareholders get a say on this. The ramifications of the sale
will no doubt be taken into account as any business does when they
sell such a big part of company assets.
The *only* thing ever "taken into account" in big business is how much
more excessive money will go into the pockets of the management team
and the shareholders.
However a company decides to manage it's affairs is none of anybody
else's business.
Bill.
However a company decides to manage it's affairs is none of anybody
else's business.
On Sat, 18 Oct 2025 05:35:16 +1300, BR wrote:
However a company decides to manage it's affairs is none of anybody
else's business.
It takes a certain degree of Government regulation to ensure that free >markets remain free. Otherwise it would be a free-for-all with
monopolistic behaviour, predatory pricing, deceptive advertising, bait- >and-switch, and just plain fraud, all being allowed.
On 2025-10-17 16:35:16 +0000, BR said:
On Fri, 17 Oct 2025 18:12:22 +1300, Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com>
wrote:
On 2025-10-17 04:22:29 +0000, Crash said:
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/576195/winston-peters-threatens-fonterra-over-sale-of-anchor-and-mainland-brands?cid=newsletter
What Fonterra plans to sell is their business. Winston Peters may
have a view on this but it is completely unacceptable to try to
threaten Fonterra with regulation because of his views. It is not the >>>> Government's role to dictate what a private owner does with their
assets.
Thankfully both Seymour and Luxon do not support Peters' regulation
proposal, so it will not happen. I particularly enjoyed Seymour's
suggestion on 4am starts and he is correct - only Fonterra's
farmer-shareholders get a say on this. The ramifications of the sale
will no doubt be taken into account as any business does when they
sell such a big part of company assets.
The *only* thing ever "taken into account" in big business is how much
more excessive money will go into the pockets of the management team
and the shareholders.
However a company decides to manage it's affairs is none of anybody
else's business.
Bill.
Tell that to all the GrabOne customers who now have worthless vouchers, >especially as the company was still sending out "deal" emails the day
before the announcemt!! Just one of many many examples.
On Sat, 18 Oct 2025 11:34:42 +1300, Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com>
wrote:
On 2025-10-17 16:35:16 +0000, BR said:Those customers are the victims of their own misjudgment. Anyone
On Fri, 17 Oct 2025 18:12:22 +1300, Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com>
wrote:
On 2025-10-17 04:22:29 +0000, Crash said:
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/576195/winston-peters-threatens-fonterra-over-sale-of-anchor-and-mainland-brands?cid=newsletter
What Fonterra plans to sell is their business. Winston Peters may
have a view on this but it is completely unacceptable to try to
threaten Fonterra with regulation because of his views. It is not the >>>>> Government's role to dictate what a private owner does with their
assets.
Thankfully both Seymour and Luxon do not support Peters' regulation
proposal, so it will not happen. I particularly enjoyed Seymour's
suggestion on 4am starts and he is correct - only Fonterra's
farmer-shareholders get a say on this. The ramifications of the sale >>>>> will no doubt be taken into account as any business does when they
sell such a big part of company assets.
The *only* thing ever "taken into account" in big business is how much >>>> more excessive money will go into the pockets of the management team
and the shareholders.
However a company decides to manage it's affairs is none of anybody
else's business.
Bill.
Tell that to all the GrabOne customers who now have worthless vouchers,
especially as the company was still sending out "deal" emails the day
before the announcemt!! Just one of many many examples.
buying vouchers risks loosing the value of those vouchers if the
seller fails.
On Sat, 18 Oct 2025 00:38:06 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D|Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
On Sat, 18 Oct 2025 05:35:16 +1300, BR wrote:
However a company decides to manage it's affairs is none of anybody
else's business.
It takes a certain degree of Government regulation to ensure that free
markets remain free. Otherwise it would be a free-for-all with
monopolistic behaviour, predatory pricing, deceptive advertising, bait-
and-switch, and just plain fraud, all being allowed.
Agreed - but with Winston and Fonterra, he is threatening regulation
because he does not approve of what Fonterra is doing with who it is
selling an assets to.
Considering how many times the government sells off public "assets" to
greedy big business, he hasn't really got much of a "leg to stand on".
On Sat, 18 Oct 2025, Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
Tell that to all the GrabOne customers who now have worthless vouchers, >>especially as the company was still sending out "deal" emails the day >>before the announcemt!! Just one of many many examples.Those customers are the victims of their own misjudgment. Anyone
buying vouchers risks loosing the value of those vouchers if the
seller fails.
On Sat, 18 Oct 2025, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
On Sat, 18 Oct 2025, Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
Tell that to all the GrabOne customers who now have worthless vouchers,
especially as the company was still sending out "deal" emails the day
before the announcemt!! Just one of many many examples.
Those customers are the victims of their own misjudgment. Anyone
buying vouchers risks loosing the value of those vouchers if the
seller fails.
Must agree with this, vouchers are a losing game. I know someone who
had her Christmas vouchers stolen, all to save 10%. Also my club
cashed out a debenture of a failing business, just in time. Cash is
King, IOUs are knaves.
On 2025-10-18 05:35:22 +0000, Willy Nilly said:
On Sat, 18 Oct 2025, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
On Sat, 18 Oct 2025, Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
Tell that to all the GrabOne customers who now have worthless vouchers, >>>> especially as the company was still sending out "deal" emails the day
before the announcemt!! Just one of many many examples.
Those customers are the victims of their own misjudgment. Anyone
buying vouchers risks loosing the value of those vouchers if the
seller fails.
Must agree with this, vouchers are a losing game. I know someone who
had her Christmas vouchers stolen, all to save 10%. Also my club
cashed out a debenture of a failing business, just in time. Cash is
King, IOUs are knaves.
That was simply a most recent example. Obviously it isn't always
vouchers. When a business goes under, people can lose almost anything, including houses or wedding recption bookings, and never get their
deposit back.
Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
On 2025-10-17 04:22:29 +0000, Crash said:If the company is private (not listed) what they do is none of our business. If
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/576195/winston-peters-threatens-fonterra-over-sale-of-anchor-and-mainland-brands?cid=newsletter
What Fonterra plans to sell is their business. Winston Peters may
have a view on this but it is completely unacceptable to try to
threaten Fonterra with regulation because of his views. It is not the
Government's role to dictate what a private owner does with their
assets.
Thankfully both Seymour and Luxon do not support Peters' regulation
proposal, so it will not happen. I particularly enjoyed Seymour's
suggestion on 4am starts and he is correct - only Fonterra's
farmer-shareholders get a say on this. The ramifications of the sale
will no doubt be taken into account as any business does when they
sell such a big part of company assets.
The *only* thing ever "taken into account" in big business is how much
more excessive money will go into the pockets of the management team
and the shareholders.
it is listed the shareholders usually (nearly always, sometimes slowly) hold the management team to account. There are also many regulations and laws that hold management and governance to account in an effort to ensure that employees
are treated well and also to ensure that no theft occurs. None of this is perfect but much better in NZ than many other places, the USA is infamous for allowing poor treatment of employees in many states.
On 18/10/25 07:44, Tony wrote:
Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
On 2025-10-17 04:22:29 +0000, Crash said:If the company is private (not listed) what they do is none of our business. If
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/576195/winston-peters-threatens-fonterra-over-sale-of-anchor-and-mainland-brands?cid=newsletter
What Fonterra plans to sell is their business. Winston Peters may
have a view on this but it is completely unacceptable to try to
threaten Fonterra with regulation because of his views. It is not the >>>> Government's role to dictate what a private owner does with their
assets.
Thankfully both Seymour and Luxon do not support Peters' regulation
proposal, so it will not happen. I particularly enjoyed Seymour's
suggestion on 4am starts and he is correct - only Fonterra's
farmer-shareholders get a say on this. The ramifications of the sale
will no doubt be taken into account as any business does when they
sell such a big part of company assets.
The *only* thing ever "taken into account" in big business is how much
more excessive money will go into the pockets of the management team
and the shareholders.
it is listed the shareholders usually (nearly always, sometimes slowly) hold >> the management team to account. There are also many regulations and laws that
hold management and governance to account in an effort to ensure that employees
are treated well and also to ensure that no theft occurs. None of this is
perfect but much better in NZ than many other places, the USA is infamous for
allowing poor treatment of employees in many states.
Part of Fronterra is listed on the NZX, ticker FSF.
There are two classes of shares; farmer/supplier owned, and outside
investor shares. So the actions of the board do have wider implications.
But, but. you're all missing the big picture. NZ is de-industrialising,
and becomes reliant on selling commodities on volatile markets,
and missing the valued add where the money is made.
Paper mill closes; we sell raw logs, import paper to wipe ass.
Sawmill closes; we sell logs overseas and import lumber
to build homes.
Sell milk powder, import cheese, yogurt, whitening for coffee.
No jobs; those who can leave for Aussie ...etc.
How many members of your family, and friends, now live overseas?
On 18/10/25 07:44, Tony wrote:
Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
On 2025-10-17 04:22:29 +0000, Crash said:If the company is private (not listed) what they do is none of our business. If
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/576195/winston-peters-threatens-fonterra-over-sale-of-anchor-and-mainland-brands?cid=newsletter
What Fonterra plans to sell is their business. Winston Peters may
have a view on this but it is completely unacceptable to try to
threaten Fonterra with regulation because of his views. It is not the >>>> Government's role to dictate what a private owner does with their
assets.
Thankfully both Seymour and Luxon do not support Peters' regulation
proposal, so it will not happen. I particularly enjoyed Seymour's
suggestion on 4am starts and he is correct - only Fonterra's
farmer-shareholders get a say on this. The ramifications of the sale
will no doubt be taken into account as any business does when they
sell such a big part of company assets.
The *only* thing ever "taken into account" in big business is how much
more excessive money will go into the pockets of the management team
and the shareholders.
it is listed the shareholders usually (nearly always, sometimes slowly) hold >> the management team to account. There are also many regulations and laws that
hold management and governance to account in an effort to ensure that employees
are treated well and also to ensure that no theft occurs. None of this is
perfect but much better in NZ than many other places, the USA is infamous for
allowing poor treatment of employees in many states.
Part of Fronterra is listed on the NZX, ticker FSF.
There are two classes of shares; farmer/supplier owned, and outside
investor shares. So the actions of the board do have wider implications.
But, but. you're all missing the big picture. NZ is de-industrialising,
and becomes reliant on selling commodities on volatile markets,
and missing the valued add where the money is made.
Paper mill closes;
we sell raw logs, import paper to wipe ass.
Sawmill closes; we sell logs overseas and import lumber
to build homes.
Sell milk powder, import cheese, yogurt, whitening for coffee.
No jobs; those who can leave for Aussie ...etc.
How many members of your family, and friends, now live overseas?
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 54 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 01:21:48 |
| Calls: | 743 |
| Files: | 1,218 |
| Messages: | 187,735 |