Discuss The Archers  permalink

Stand your ground Adam!

This discussion has been closed.

Messages: 51 - 100 of 111
  • Message 51

    , in reply to message 50.

    Posted by The Leech Pedlar (U15129703) on Saturday, 21st July 2012

    Will the mega-dairy ever be built? The battle is far from over it would seem.

    www.dailymail.co.uk/...

    Do I detect a guest appearance of Joanna Lumley in a future edition of TA?

    That would be rather nice.

    Report message1

  • Message 52

    , in reply to message 36.

    Posted by Lakey_Hill (U14391672) on Saturday, 21st July 2012

    I think that the understanding is that Adam and Debbie have been contributing to the farm for a number of years, whereas Kate and Alice don't.

    Report message2

  • Message 53

    , in reply to message 52.

    Posted by StargazerwithOscar (U14668197) on Saturday, 21st July 2012

    Same with David and Brookfield.

    Report message3

  • Message 54

    , in reply to message 34.

    Posted by Ginslinger Redux (U14830013) on Saturday, 21st July 2012

    But he hasn't despised it until they wanted to get into what is basically factory farming. And unlike his siblings he is working for his income and seems to be doing more than can be reasonably expected of an employed farm manager as evidenced by Jenny and Brian still having to work quite hard to cover him when he was recovering even when the cover manager was there. He hasn't been used a lot and then often as a bit of a cipher so it has been nice to see things like helping David after the accident.

    So partly it is the new and real issue of the mega dairy to which he has both business and ethical objection and the longstanding one of always being bypassed by Debbie and Brian.

    I think it would be better for him to cut his losses if necessary and leave because basically it never seens as is he will be treated as an equal. I just hope he has been properly paid rather than expecting to get recompense long term.

    Report message4

  • Message 55

    , in reply to message 47.

    Posted by Organoleptic Icon (U11219171) on Saturday, 21st July 2012

    In reply to Dinah Shore:

    Friday 1st February
    Brian has something on his mind - Jenny can tell that - and he is ready to tell her what it is. He has been thinking about the future of the farm, about his will, in the light of all the changes lately.

    Kate and Alice will, as planned get one of the holiday cottages each, plus some cash.

    Should Jenny survive him, Home Farm will be her home for the rest of her life.

    After that it will go down the line, to Debbie and Adam. Nothing new so far.

    But he wants to include Ruairi.

    Jennifer simply cannot believe it. Brian is depriving Debbie and Adam of their inheritance.
    She should have known that all this "hands on" activity had an ulterior motive. She knew that he would want to leave something for Ruairidh but on a par with his provision for the two girls.

    He is not even "our" child - to which Brian cannot resist pointing out that Debbie and Adam are also not "ours".

    Ruairi is his son; of course his share would be in trust.

    He is growing up on a farm and he might want to be a farmer - and he might not. Jennifer feels that Ruairi could prevent Debbie and Adam from getting what is their due for commitment, body and soul, to the farm. What Brian proposes is not fair to Debbie, Adam or Jennifer but if he is intent on creating this mess, she hopes he is ready to live with the consequences.




    Friday 29th February
    • When Peggy calls at Home Farm, she finds a sick and bored Ruairidh, a harassed Jennifer and an arguing Adam and Brian. That something is wrong is inescapable, so Jennifer tells her about the will.
    Having thought about the inheritance issue, Peggy advises Jennifer to get tough and tell Brian that he must leave the farm to Adam and Debbie. She has cards to play; now is the time to play them.
    2nd March
    Jennifer finally has it out with Brian. The way he is behaving over the inheritance is changing the way she feels about Ruairi. Brian accuses her of blackmail and isn't going to listen but Jennifer thinks he should. She isn't sure she can give Ruairi the love that he needs anymore.
    Friday 7th March
    Brian tries to have a show down with Jennifer. She needs to snap out of things before she does some lasting damage to her family. Brian thinks she is being unreasonable and thinking of everyone but Ruairi. Eventually Jennifer plays her final card. If Brian doesn't come up with a better solution for the farm, even if it isn't what she wants, she will divorce him to get the right solution for Adam and Debbie. 


    What year is all this? 2013?


    As ever in TA the financial structure is vague and ill-defined, but we do know that in terms of commercial decisions any two of Brine/Debbie/Adam can outvote the other; so it's something between 33% each and 48/26/26.

    Report message5

  • Message 56

    , in reply to message 55.

    Posted by BlackSheepBoy (U11150138) on Saturday, 21st July 2012

    But starting back at he original post, I would expect Adam to stand his ground.

    He disliked the scheme at the start, he was not won round to approve of it, and it is only going ahead because Brian found an alternative means of supplying feed which avoided any positive cooperation by Adam.

    The only thing that has happened since is that Adam has been knocked on the head. A consequence is that he and Brian are on speaking terms, but that is no reason why he would now agree to what he had resisted so emphatically before.

    If he feels sufficiently badly to withdraw from HF work, then his income from it becomes problematic. It is one thing to have an understanding on profit sharing when you are contributing labour and effort, but unreasonable to think that it continues when you don't participate.

    As regards capital, then as of now does he have any at all? He expects to inherit some, but even that is surely at Brians discretion? Wills can be altered, and agreements can be changed.

    So I would understand why he might withdraw, but basically he would have to do it wearing only the clothes that he stands up in, and his farming CV.

    Report message6

  • Message 57

    , in reply to message 56.

    Posted by JoinedPeetsBoard_Smeesues_too (U14519481) on Saturday, 21st July 2012

    He and Ian would have to re-mortgage the house to get hold of some capital - not sure how much equity they have in it
    JPBS

    Report message7

  • Message 58

    , in reply to message 56.

    Posted by Organoleptic Icon (U11219171) on Saturday, 21st July 2012

    As regards capital, then as of now does he have any at all? He expects to inherit some, but even that is surely at Brians discretion? Wills can be altered, and agreements can be changed. 

    He might already have some equity to avoid death taxes.

    Report message8

  • Message 59

    , in reply to message 57.

    Posted by Ginslinger Redux (U14830013) on Saturday, 21st July 2012

    They would have a fair amount of equity in the house. They bought it - what getting on for ten years ago and have been in steady employment since. They have minimal travel costs, Adam may well drive a HF car, both get some meals at work. Their house was refurbed by previous owners, no kids, not much in the way of holidays that we know of. May well have taken advantage of low interest rates to pay off more of mortgage and the house has no doubt increased in value.

    However a cottage won't buy a farm. At least not in the same area.

    Report message9

  • Message 60

    , in reply to message 17.

    Posted by Earldunda (U14196337) on Saturday, 21st July 2012

    Adam has a degee in Agrinomics and over twenty years farming experience. Have you any evidence he is a poor farm manager? You may not like him as a person but I don't recall any evidence he isn't doing his job properle and is undeserving of respect in that sphere.   I think I've not fully followed Adam's doings over the years- thought he had flounced off to Africa and done some kind of voluntary work there ( and had an affair with a man). Did this constitute twenty years farming experience?

    Report message10

  • Message 61

    , in reply to message 60.

    Posted by MsMumbo-Jumbo (U3613133) on Saturday, 21st July 2012

    Perhaps 5 years scratching a living in the African bush is equivalent to 20 living the life of Riley in the English shires.
    MJ

    Report message11

  • Message 62

    , in reply to message 60.

    Posted by Ginslinger Redux (U14830013) on Saturday, 21st July 2012

    An affair is hardly an occupation or one that stops you farming ..hasn't stopped Brian. Is it and affair if neither of you are married btw? Why are you even mentioning it and using the word "flounce"? If he were heterosexual would you have used flounce and mentioned his sex life I wonder.

    He was working in farming development projects. And there is ten years in England.

    Report message12

  • Message 63

    , in reply to message 61.

    Posted by Organoleptic Icon (U11219171) on Saturday, 21st July 2012

    Perhaps 5 years scratching a living in the African bush is equivalent to 20 living the life of Riley in the English shires.
    MJ 


    When not being assaulted and murdered by the locals the white settlers mostly made very good livings both for themselves - and for their employees compared to what they got before AND AFTER.

    Report message13

  • Message 64

    , in reply to message 27.

    Posted by Dailyfix (U14602649) on Sunday, 22nd July 2012

    I agree with you Poorgrass I think Brian will be ousted from BL as Annabelle plays Brutus and the mega dairy will not happen. I can't see Adam and Ian moving they are the only gays in the village. Adam will win only by default and no doubt hold a grudge about it for a long time but Jenny will be relieved at harmony restored even though Brian will be shocked and gutted I don't think he will see t coming.

    Report message14

  • Message 65

    , in reply to message 51.

    Posted by Lee Shore (U14673711) on Sunday, 22nd July 2012

    Highly unlikely. The editorial committee is against it. They still believe family dairy farms are profitable by just producing liquid milk. The continent will as usual be able to forge ahead in this respect whilst another business opportunity withers on the vine here and we end up with model heritage dairies with milkmaids a milking.

    On the HF inheritance issue, is the farm business or the freehold being divvied up? The business and the land/property are two different things. I thought the divsison was of the bsuiness revenue assets eg leases, goodwill f & f, contracts etc and not the freehold land and buildings which would be B and JS's retirement income.

    Report message15

  • Message 66

    , in reply to message 65.

    Posted by The Leech Pedlar (U15129703) on Sunday, 22nd July 2012

    Highly unlikely. The editorial committee is against it. They still believe family dairy farms are profitable by just producing liquid milk. 

    At the moment the market for milk isn't fair, it is sold as a loss-leader by supermarkets, the prices are rigged to favour this and because of there being only a few large commercial milk dairies who are able to dictate prices to milk producers.
    Mega dairies won't change that. They haven't in North America.

    What they may well do is over-produce milk, in the medium term putting even more downward pressure on prices.
    Big isn't always best.

    Report message16

  • Message 67

    , in reply to message 66.

    Posted by Poorgrass (U12099742) on Sunday, 22nd July 2012

    A lot depends on consumer reaction and the perception of the supermarkets. If the supermarkets get wind that mega-dairies are a "toxic" consumer issue like GM, watch them drop it like a hot potato. They'll quickly demand/find a supply of "megadairy free" milk. You can see how sensitive they are by their declarations this week that they're going to pay more for milk. In the UK mega dairies must be a very big risk commercially.

    Report message17

  • Message 68

    , in reply to message 67.

    Posted by DracoM1 (U14252039) on Sunday, 22nd July 2012

    As many said back when the idea was first mooted, if it goes ahead it will SATTC far more than any other single event apart from the Dopeys deciding to emigrate.

    Yes, I know, I know..............

    And if the megadairy does go ahead, I do not see how the TA team cannot spend a huge amount of the tiny 13 min epis every week on it, its building, village traffic issues, its impact on locals like BF / Ed / B'field etc, reaction of the PC, such that the whole of TA becomes skewed to accommodate it. If they have thought it through like that, then my guess is that the current wave of whispers about unhappiness at BL, talk of Brian getting ousted if he uses BL to support his HF dreams etc will prove true, and Brian will read th runes and back off, the megadairy will not get built, and maybe even Adam takes over the entire HF operation and Brine sulks in his tent big time.

    Logistically, I just cannot see TA going down the megadairy route. Lacing TA with endless stats, jargon etc related to industrial scale farming would bore the pants of even the most ardent TA fan, and while they can go on just about getting by with their current Janet and John Book of Farming approach as of now - which is already many miles away from what happens daily on dairy farms - they will do so, and increasingly devote the epis to 'human drama' and sensations, thus keeping TA on safer ground. Move it into proper hi-tech farming and TA is history. IMO.

    Report message18

  • Message 69

    , in reply to message 68.

    Posted by Halliana (U2407863) on Sunday, 22nd July 2012

    I have the feeling this is a "put up job" .

    Someone agrees to do the feed stuff...

    Adam is relieved..


    The other party then pulls out.


    Home farm simply "must " take it on. Too late now to look for another supplier.

    Report message19

  • Message 70

    , in reply to message 66.

    Posted by Organoleptic Icon (U11219171) on Sunday, 22nd July 2012

    At the moment the market for milk isn't fair, it is sold as a loss-leader by supermarkets, 

    It most certainly is not.


    .

    Report message20

  • Message 71

    , in reply to message 70.

    Posted by BlackSheepBoy (U11150138) on Sunday, 22nd July 2012

    If it is sold as a loss-leader.....

    Or if in fact it is not a loss-leader, but some profit is made.....

    Then myself as a shopper for milk, what action to take, and what attitude to adopt?

    Is it alright to welcome the fact that the milk seems cheap and long may it do so? Or should I campaign to have it cost more, and ensure no risk of a supermarket losing money on my purchase?

    Report message21

  • Message 72

    , in reply to message 71.

    Posted by Organoleptic Icon (U11219171) on Sunday, 22nd July 2012

    If it is sold as a loss-leader.....

    Or if in fact it is not a loss-leader, but some profit is made..... 


    Even at 98p for 4pts the supermarket has an entirely adequate margin, and you should not worry about them. They are more than capable of looking after themselves.

    As are the dairies - who will remain needed unless the smkts decide to take the job in house. Unlikely as they don't want the flak.

    Oddly, for once the farmers seem to have a case. They are tied into monopsonistic unfair contracts which should be banned by the OFT.

    But the farmers have been crying wolf forever so get little sympathy - and vast subsidies.

    We should abolish the subsidies and make the supply contracts fair.

    Probably still need less dairy cows though.

    Report message22

  • Message 73

    , in reply to message 72.

    Posted by BlackSheepBoy (U11150138) on Sunday, 22nd July 2012

    Oi

    Thank you, I have learned a new word; it starts with m

    I agree about the subsidies.

    After that, I am not interested in the contracts; fair or foul, they are a matter between farmers and potential buyers.

    When they have made their contracts, some people will be in business and some will not, and the milk will be whatever price it is.

    That is the first and only point at which I think I need to be involved, because I will always have to be responsible for my decision to buy or do without milk.

    Report message23

  • Message 74

    , in reply to message 72.

    Posted by soobeesomewhere_or_other_soon (U14156736) on Sunday, 22nd July 2012

    They are tied into monopsonistic unfair contracts which should be banned by the OFT. 
    I agree.
    Having close contact with friends who run a dairy farm, there is no way I could tolerate their lives. *No* profit (in fact loss) from the milk, TB forever rearing its ugly head and absolute dependence on one massive buyer. Nope, it's a hard life. Truly.
    Soo

    Report message24

  • Message 75

    , in reply to message 73.

    Posted by Organoleptic Icon (U11219171) on Sunday, 22nd July 2012

    Oi

    Thank you, I have learned a new word; it starts with m 


    You are most welcome. Though strictly I have erred - the correct term is "oligopsonistic" !!

    After that, I am not interested in the contracts; fair or foul, they are a matter between farmers and potential buyers. 

    Ah well that's rather the point. The terms are not negotiated freely, they are dictated by the dairies. And they are blatantly one-sided.

    Report message25

  • Message 76

    , in reply to message 75.

    Posted by soobeesomewhere_or_other_soon (U14156736) on Sunday, 22nd July 2012

    Yes, I always think of the dairies as being one entity, but of course there are a few of them. The net result is still a stranglehold on the dairy farmers.
    I would gladly pay a price for milk that would reflect its true worth.
    Soo

    Report message26

  • Message 77

    , in reply to message 76.

    Posted by Organoleptic Icon (U11219171) on Sunday, 22nd July 2012

    In reply to soobeehere:

    Yes, I always think of the dairies as being one entity, but of course there are a few of them. The net result is still a stranglehold on the dairy farmers.
    I would gladly pay a price for milk that would reflect its true worth.
    Soo 


    I suspect that you are doing.

    The problem is that the supermarkets are paying too little - though several claim to pay farmers more.

    I am a great believer in free markets - but I don't think this is one.

    Report message27

  • Message 78

    , in reply to message 55.

    Posted by shesings (U2666459) on Sunday, 22nd July 2012

    Twas 2008, OI, not that long after Ruauri arrived in Ambridge!

    Report message28

  • Message 79

    , in reply to message 78.

    Posted by Poorgrass (U12099742) on Sunday, 22nd July 2012

    Way to go, Adam! Now let Brian stew all week, with luck the BL board will ambush him on Friday, and there will be no mega dairy!

    Report message29

  • Message 80

    , in reply to message 70.

    Posted by The Leech Pedlar (U15129703) on Sunday, 22nd July 2012

    At the moment the market for milk isn't fair, it is sold as a loss-leader by supermarkets, 

    It most certainly is not.


    .  


    That's alright then... Will you tell the farmers or shall I? ;- )

    www.bbc.co.uk/news/u...

    Report message30

  • Message 81

    , in reply to message 80.

    Posted by Organoleptic Icon (U11219171) on Sunday, 22nd July 2012

    LP did you READ your link?

    It shows

    "£1.18 Retailer Price"
    "34p Retailer Profit"

    actually margin.

    So at 98p they still make 14p margin.

    NOT a loss.

    Report message31

  • Message 82

    , in reply to message 81.

    Posted by The Leech Pedlar (U15129703) on Monday, 23rd July 2012

    I read it.

    A loss-leader in supermarket terms, is a product which has its price cut and that in turn - you would think - cuts the profits of the supermarket.

    Not a bit of it, the supermarket takes a small hit, but the rest of the loss is passed on down the line, so the supplying dairy takes a hit and the milk producer takes a hit.

    www.walesonline.co.u...

    Exactly the same thing as when a supermarket runs a BOGOF (Buy One Get One Free). It passes the loss of profit down the line to the p[roducer of the product which has in effect had its price cut.
    Supermarkets NEVER lose out... Trust me.

    Report message32

  • Message 83

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by SredniVashtar07 (U9755761) on Monday, 23rd July 2012

    The sooner the awful ingrate beggars off back to Africa. where his saintliness can be better appreciated the better.

    How Brian puts up with him is beyond me !



    Report message33

  • Message 84

    , in reply to message 83.

    Posted by JacksParakeetBeingDe-Nested (U2979858) on Monday, 23rd July 2012

    On BL, I believe Annabelle intends to have clean enough hands to cling successfully to the coat-tails of whoever she judges will be Chairman, whom she will support as soon as she feels Brian cannot command the Board's support.

    An interesting spin-off from this SL would be how Brian reacts to being out-manoeuvred: will he stay and fight to regain the Chair, or flounce off into the sunset? I suspect the former is more likely, as he has a good enough business head to shrug off personal set-backs. Might he craft an alliance with Matt, once the latter's disqualification from being a director ends? AFAIR Matt still has shares in BL.

    jp

    Report message34

  • Message 85

    , in reply to message 82.

    Posted by Organoleptic Icon (U11219171) on Monday, 23rd July 2012

    LP - A loss leader is a product sold at a LOSS to get customers into the shop. The clue is in the word "loss".

    A mere reduction, offer, bogof, etc. is not a loss leader.

    Report message35

  • Message 86

    , in reply to message 85.

    Posted by The Leech Pedlar (U15129703) on Monday, 23rd July 2012

    LP - A loss leader is a product sold at a LOSS to get customers into the shop. The clue is in the word "loss". 

    Indeed it is, but it needn't be the supermarket that takes all of the hit.. It just means the supermarket reduces the prices of the product by Xp and then passes that Xp reduction on to the supplier, who in turn passes it down the line.

    So in Milk terms, the supermarket decides to cut the price of milk by the equiv. of 5p profit per unit. It then phones up the supplying dairy and says we're running this as a loss leader and taking a hit of 5p per unit. For the duration were going to pay you a 4p reduction in unit price. The supermarkets being the main and some cases the only customer for that dairy's product, can't really argue.

    To claw back that lost income, the dairy reduces what it pays the farmers... The farmers end up paying for the cut price milk sold as a loss-leader in the supermarkets.

    A reduction offer, BOGOF, two for one multibuy, etc. works exactly the same way. The sole purpose of loss-leaders and BOGOFs etc, is the same... To increase footfall into the shop.

    Report message36

  • Message 87

    , in reply to message 86.

    Posted by soobeesomewhere_or_other_soon (U14156736) on Monday, 23rd July 2012

    I think I hate supermarkets. It's very difficult around these parts to shop without using them, but I'm going to do my darnedest.
    Soo

    Report message37

  • Message 88

    , in reply to message 87.

    Posted by Earldunda (U14196337) on Monday, 23rd July 2012

    I think I hate supermarkets. It's very difficult around these parts to shop without using them, but I'm going to do my darnedest.
    Soo  
    I cannot afford not to use supermarkets.

    But I don't use milk, so don't care about the price of milk issue.

    Report message38

  • Message 89

    , in reply to message 86.

    Posted by Organoleptic Icon (U11219171) on Monday, 23rd July 2012

    LP The OED agrees with me that a loss leader requires a loss by the vendor

    loss leader n. Comm. an article put on sale at a non-profit-making price in order to attract potential buyers of other articles;

    but feel free to Humpty.

    Report message39

  • Message 90

    , in reply to message 89.

    Posted by The Leech Pedlar (U15129703) on Monday, 23rd July 2012

    LP The OED agrees with me that a loss leader requires a loss by the vendor 

    That's okay. It's all swings and roundabouts. :- )

    loss leader n. Comm. an article put on sale at a non-profit-making price in order to attract potential buyers of other articles; 

    www.bbc.co.uk/news/u...

    Take a look at the RABDF graphic on this page. Spot who is making the loss... Go on... You know you want to. smiley - winkeye

    Report message40

  • Message 91

    , in reply to message 90.

    Posted by Organoleptic Icon (U11219171) on Monday, 23rd July 2012

    The Farmer - they claim - is making an 11p loss (though I suspect that is "fully absorbed" not "gross margin").

    But it is not a "loss leader" for the farmer unless it procures him other sales.

    Report message41

  • Message 92

    , in reply to message 91.

    Posted by The Leech Pedlar (U15129703) on Monday, 23rd July 2012

    That's supply chain economics for you. For every downstream vendor cutting prices and creating a loss-leader, so upstream, there will be somebody taking the hit... Except supermarkets.
    The concept of actually "making a loss" isn't in their dictionary.
    :- )

    I suspect that despite the news report today, things won't change even if farmers start pouring milk down the drain.

    No doubt then the govt. will start fining the farmers for polluting the rivers.

    Report message42

  • Message 93

    , in reply to message 92.

    Posted by Organoleptic Icon (U11219171) on Monday, 23rd July 2012

    I suspect that despite the news report today, things won't change even if farmers start pouring milk down the drain.

    No doubt then the govt. will start fining the farmers for polluting the rivers. 


    Rightly so.

    But they can spread it on fields.


    The concept of actually "making a loss" isn't in their dictionary. 


    Should it be?

    Report message43

  • Message 94

    , in reply to message 93.

    Posted by The Leech Pedlar (U15129703) on Monday, 23rd July 2012

    <quote>But they can spread it on fields.</quote>

    NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    It's bad enough when they've been muck-spreading. But at least that's over and done with in a couple of days. We don't want the nauseating stench of milk souring for a couple of weeks or more. Particularly in this weather.

    Should it be?</quote>

    Why not? It seems a good way of demonstrating that with power comes responsibility.

    Report message44

  • Message 95

    , in reply to message 94.

    Posted by Organoleptic Icon (U11219171) on Monday, 23rd July 2012

    with power comes responsibility. 

    Several of the smkts - Tesbury+ seem to have some arrangement whereby they control what farmers get paid - presumably reducing the dairies to toll processors.

    IIRC BroF failed to get such a contract.

    Report message45

  • Message 96

    , in reply to message 95.

    Posted by The Leech Pedlar (U15129703) on Tuesday, 24th July 2012

    Yes. It's a disgrace.

    These supermarket bosses should be taken out and given a damned good horse-whipping.

    Report message46

  • Message 97

    , in reply to message 36.

    Posted by Mysterious (U14144861) on Tuesday, 24th July 2012

    Brian and Jennifer have five children between them and it seems to me Adam is the most 'hands on '. I think it's time Brian acknowledged just how much Adam means to the farm and starts to treat him more fairly.

    Report message47

  • Message 98

    , in reply to message 97.

    Posted by Organoleptic Icon (U11219171) on Tuesday, 24th July 2012

    I think it's time Brian acknowledged just how much Adam means to the farm and starts to treat him more fairly. 

    brian clearly - probably correctly - thinks Adam can be replaced by an employee. Probably can whilst Brine's compos remains mentis.

    Report message48

  • Message 99

    , in reply to message 98.

    Posted by BlackSheepBoy (U11150138) on Tuesday, 24th July 2012

    Think how much less complicated life would be.

    The employee would do what the employer said; concentrate on tactics and leave the grand strategy to the boss.

    Brian is more naturally at home being the boss than being one on a Board, or even chairing a Board. Same applies whether it's BL or the family "board".

    In the opposite direction, Adam might be better off too. Until he owns a farm (all of a it) and can act unilaterally, he might work more comfortably for an employer. He is not at his best when it is bearing up and tolerating the majority view.

    Report message49

  • Message 100

    , in reply to message 98.

    Posted by Poorgrass (U12099742) on Tuesday, 24th July 2012

    But Brian is a rubbish manager, particularly carp at handling people. Remember all the trouble he caused before with Debbie and Adam. I suspect the only reason Home Farm is a success is because of its size and economy of scale and also because of Adam's efforts. Let's face it, Brian wants a yes-man, but if he gets one, things will almost certainly go pear shaped. So he'll sack the yes man, and get another one and so on. It's interesting how Brian still has any reputation as a competent businessman.

    The BL board seem to have finally started to twig that Brian is rubbish, I do hope they depose him.

    Report message50

Back to top

About this Board

Welcome to the Archers Messageboard.

or register to take part in a discussion.


The message board is currently closed for posting.

This messageboard is now closed.

This messageboard is reactively moderated.

Find out more about this board's House Rules

Search this Board

Copyright © 2015 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.