Task for Agman or SH

[Sandhusker]

Agman, "That statement, not a fact, was made by Sandhusker in case you did not notice. I know you cannot prove your allegations, that is a fact Squirm you worm. Let Sandhusker prove his statement. His allegation is as baseless as yours so I won't hold my breath. You are all talk and NO facts. They have a spot for you in R-Laugh, right alongside of Sandhusker."

I think you and SH must of taken the same reading comprehension class, Agman. :lol: Read it again and ask yourself what the word "if" preceeding the statement might mean. Ah, heck, let me do it for you.

My statement did not say that the Canadians carried the US divisions. On the other hand, it didn't say they didn't either. What it does say is that IF (key word now), IF they did, that would be notable.

Too bad some of the contacts you brag on weren't reading teachers! :lol: :lol:

 

[agman]

Did I thank you for your facts Agman. I thought I did.

Anyways thanks again.

Those facts helped me put this thing to bed.

Even the Amicus breif. That was about the time that profits started to decrease here in Canada.

Have a good day, and thanks again.

Your friend,
Randy

You did not even know they filed an Amicus Brief now you are trying to tie the timing of that brief to declining profits. I am puzzled, I did not post the date of their filing, so how do you know when they filed? I think you just fell face first into a puddle of your own making once again!!!! You are just not up to speed for this are you?

 

[agman]

SH, "Agman presented Tyson's profit figures but there is no breakdown between Canadian and U.S. plants but why would there need to be? Tyson's total profits in their beef plants is what really matters to Tyson."

That's rediculous. Not only does Tyson break out Canadian beef operations from US operations, they break out each individual plant and could even tell you information on different shifts.

OK hotshot, since you know all of that post the information!!!!!! OOPS, stuck your foot in your mouth once again.

Actually, Agman, the incisors making furrows in the wing-tips are your own. I didn't say I knew what that information was, did I? I'm looking for it, because I know damn well, as do you, that Tyson, as does any large multinational and multi-cost center company, breaks down profits to individual plants and even beyond. Perhaps your contacts have not informed you of that? OOPS!

Just keep on looking. Yes, I do have contacts that could provide me with that information. But such information is internal and I would not disclose such. The fact is that while annual profits were positive there were quarters when they operated with losses which would suggest all plants may have been losing money, the gains in Canada were insufficient to cover losses in the U.S. or the gains in the U.S were at times insufficient to cover losses in the Canadian plants. You can select which one trips your trigger.

 

[Murgen]

"I invested in oil futures awhile ago, two years to be exact. I have no love lost for the large capitalistic oil companies, but what I have made on futures has more than covered my additional fuel costs."

If a packer is making so much money and is a publically traded company, why not buy shares.

Agman, which packers are publically traded and which can the producer take an active role in profits and loses?

I guess the other way to go is to start/get involved with a branded beef product and negotiate a set price for hooks.

 

[rkaiser]

Agman -

You did not even know they filed an Amicus Brief now you are trying to tie the timing of that brief to declining profits. I am puzzled, I did not post the date of their filing, so how do you know when they filed? I think you just fell face first into a puddle of your own making once again!!!! You are just not up to speed for this are you?

You're right Agman, I did suppose that the breif was filed when the salmon run started to end. When was the Amicus breif filed Agman? If it was around the beginning of 2005 you've just cooked your goose again.

And if it was please please start another thread and try to convince everyone else of the will of Tyson to stop their own saving grace.

I'm really getting sick of your whining and desperate attempts to wiggle out of this one.

 

[rkaiser]

Murgen

If a packer is making so much money and is a publically traded company, why not buy shares.

Give me a braek Murgen, the salmon run is over. I have never been the packer blamer that SH and Agman have been yapping about. Simply stating that something other than an ethical innocent route was taken to insure profit by Cargill and Tyson. They did it and it was legal. And I hope you had shares in the Canadian division of Tyson since Sept. 2003.

 

[Anonymous]

Randy,

In my question to you I asked you if you had proof to back your allegation that Tyson's profits in Canada were more than the losses in the U.S. You admitted you did not have any proof.

Now you are backpeddling again to suggest that Agman's data proves your case. First you didn't have any proof and now you think Agman provided your proof due to your inability to decipher the facts.

Tell me Randy, WHEN DID THE BORDER CLOSE, Hmmmmmm?????

Tell me Randy, WHEN DID TYSON SHOW THEIR LOSSES, hmmmmm???

Don't answer those questions Randy because the correct answers will kill your argument.

IF TWO QUARTERS SHOWED LOSSES, THEN HOW THE HELL COULD TYSON HAVE BENEFITTED FROM A CLOSED CANADIAN BORDER????

Nobody with any common sense could reach the conclusion you reached based on Tyson's financial data.

Sandman: "If the Canadian plant's profits carried the US plant's losses, that would be big indeed considering the Canadian plants don't process near the numbers of cattle processed in the US."

I took that statement to mean that IT WOULD REALLY BE A REACH to believe that Canadian plant's profits carried the U.S. plants losses. Isn't that how you meant it?

Randy took your statement to agree with him.

Ok Sandman, which side of the fence are you going to be on here?

Do you agree with R-CALF that Tyson wanted the Canadian border open to live cattle or do you agree with Randy that Tyson wanted the Canadian border to stay closed to live cattle?

Agman and I differed on how we interpreted your statement.

What's your position Sandman or would you rather make another "if" statement and safety up?

Murgen: "If a packer is making so much money and is a publically traded company, why not buy shares."

Murgen: "I guess the other way to go is to start/get involved with a branded beef product and negotiate a set price for hooks."

Atta boy Murgen!

That's the intelligent Canadian producer I have come to respect.

Exactly right!

Don't blame the successful packer, BE ONE OR BE INVOLVED IN ONE!

Nobody ever blamed their way to profitability but many have tried.

You nailed the correct attitude, proud of ya!



~SH~

 

[Maple Leaf Angus]

Murgen, After a nice stroking like the one you just got, it's no wonder I can hear you purring from here!

Where ya been? You still helping out at my neighbours job?

 

[agman]

"I invested in oil futures awhile ago, two years to be exact. I have no love lost for the large capitalistic oil companies, but what I have made on futures has more than covered my additional fuel costs."

If a packer is making so much money and is a publically traded company, why not buy shares.

Agman, which packers are publically traded and which can the producer take an active role in profits and loses?

I guess the other way to go is to start/get involved with a branded beef product and negotiate a set price for hooks.

Tyson and Smithfield

 

[rkaiser]

You two (SH and Agman ) still here. I thought I said thanks for the help.

Are you still trying to convince me of something after proving everything for me that I asked.

Go start another thread, like I said before.

Call it.

"Tyson foods works in unison with Canadian Ranchers to solve the BSE crisis."

 

[agman]

Randy,

In my question to you I asked you if you had proof to back your allegation that Tyson's profits in Canada were more than the losses in the U.S. You admitted you did not have any proof.

Now you are backpeddling again to suggest that Agman's data proves your case. First you didn't have any proof and now you think Agman provided your proof due to your inability to decipher the facts.

Tell me Randy, WHEN DID THE BORDER CLOSE, Hmmmmmm?????

Tell me Randy, WHEN DID TYSON SHOW THEIR LOSSES, hmmmmm???

Don't answer those questions Randy because the correct answers will kill your argument.

IF TWO QUARTERS SHOWED LOSSES, THEN HOW THE HELL COULD TYSON HAVE BENEFITTED FROM A CLOSED CANADIAN BORDER????

Nobody with any common sense could reach the conclusion you reached based on Tyson's financial data.

Sandman: "If the Canadian plant's profits carried the US plant's losses, that would be big indeed considering the Canadian plants don't process near the numbers of cattle processed in the US."

I took that statement to mean that IT WOULD REALLY BE A REACH to believe that Canadian plant's profits carried the U.S. plants losses. Isn't that how you meant it?

Randy took your statement to agree with him.

Ok Sandman, which side of the fence are you going to be on here?

Do you agree with R-CALF that Tyson wanted the Canadian border open to live cattle or do you agree with Randy that Tyson wanted the Canadian border to stay closed to live cattle?

Agman and I differed on how we interpreted your statement.

What's your position Sandman or would you rather make another "if" statement and safety up?

Murgen: "If a packer is making so much money and is a publically traded company, why not buy shares."

Murgen: "I guess the other way to go is to start/get involved with a branded beef product and negotiate a set price for hooks."

Atta boy Murgen!

That's the intelligent Canadian producer I have come to respect.

Exactly right!

Don't blame the successful packer, BE ONE OR BE INVOLVED IN ONE!

Nobody ever blamed their way to profitability but many have tried.

You nailed the correct attitude, proud of ya!



~SH~

Additional note: I only cited that they lost money in two of the past three quarters. They also lost money in other quarters during the period of interest when the border was closed although they were profitable for the year. RK simply has no basis to support his allegations.

 

[rkaiser]

Agman -

Per public records on Tyson the year 2003 was record operating income for the beef division. That is before taxes and interest. Operating income from the beef division that year were $320 million. They kill over 10 million head of cattle a year. Since you have not demonstrated that you can provide any factual data I will do the math for you ($320 M /10M = $32 per head). In 2004 their beef operating income, before taxes and interest, was $127 million ($127 M / 10M = $12.70 per head). For the nine months of fiscal year 2005 they are +$1.0 million. They lost $16M and $19M in their first and second fiscal quarters. For the past three quarters they earned $36 million, thus they are +$1.0 million for the first nine months of 2005 or $.13 per head. Their fiscal year is from September - September. The most profitable quarter recored was their fourth fiscal quarter of 2003 they earned $142 million ($142 /2.5 = $56.80 per head).

What on earth is going on here. This little post by Agman shows that there was better profit in 2003 and 2004 than there was in 2005. Was Tyson fighting for an open border in 2003 or 2004? Maybe closer to the end of 2004 and certainly in 2005. The border closure was not hurting until lately. It is as simple as that.

The Canadian plant was making enough money to offset American losses which Agman told us was the reason for Tyson wanting the border open.

I am not saying that this was not the case, once the salmon run was coming to an end. But while the salmon run was in full swing, give me a break. Would you try to stop the coins pouring from the one armed bandit in Vegas after it started spewing?



My goodness Agman. How many time do I have to say thanks for your help. Now go back to school and learn a bit more capitalist economics rather than finger painting.

 

[Murgen]

Murgen, After a nice stroking like the one you just got, it's no wonder I can hear you purring from here!

Where ya been? You still helping out at my neighbours job?

Scratch my belly, scratch my belly! purrrrr! :twisted: :twisted:

MLA, Yep, still helping out, til the end of the month anyway, recovery isn't going so well!

 

[Anonymous]

Randy,

Are you suggesting that the Canadian border is the only marketing factor that affects Tyson's profits?

Are you suggesting that retail beef prices in the U.S. remained stable through that entire period of time?

There was no change in domestic supplies?


Guess what Randy?

I just defeated my own argument that Agman's data proved you wrong didn't I?

Hahaha!

Now what do you think of that?

Are you going to jump at the chance to agree with me that I defeated my own argument and defeat your argument in the same process?

Either the Canadian border is the only influence on Tyson profitability during this time or it's not?

Decisions, decisions!




~SH~

 

[rkaiser]

No it's not the only thing. But Agman and yourself are using losses in America due to the closed border as the reason for Tyson wanting the border open.

And that my dear freind is the reason behind this whole discussion.

How come you keep showing signs of laughter in your posts SH, are you going a little wacky trying to twist and turn out of your mess.

I may not have proof that Tyson was trying to keep the border closed, but you and queekstraw have no proof that they were trying to open it.
We all have proof that profits were made in Canada and overall in North America, and those profits declined in 2005. Might not prove anything to you, but it shows me a thing or two.

Go easy SH, you're workin yourself up, and you won't be able to go to sleep.

 

[agman]

Agman -

Per public records on Tyson the year 2003 was record operating income for the beef division. That is before taxes and interest. Operating income from the beef division that year were $320 million. They kill over 10 million head of cattle a year. Since you have not demonstrated that you can provide any factual data I will do the math for you ($320 M /10M = $32 per head). In 2004 their beef operating income, before taxes and interest, was $127 million ($127 M / 10M = $12.70 per head). For the nine months of fiscal year 2005 they are +$1.0 million. They lost $16M and $19M in their first and second fiscal quarters. For the past three quarters they earned $36 million, thus they are +$1.0 million for the first nine months of 2005 or $.13 per head. Their fiscal year is from September - September. The most profitable quarter recored was their fourth fiscal quarter of 2003 they earned $142 million ($142 /2.5 = $56.80 per head).

What on earth is going on here. This little post by Agman shows that there was better profit in 2003 and 2004 than there was in 2005. Was Tyson fighting for an open border in 2003 or 2004? Maybe closer to the end of 2004 and certainly in 2005. The border closure was not hurting until lately. It is as simple as that.

The Canadian plant was making enough money to offset American losses which Agman told us was the reason for Tyson wanting the border open.

I am not saying that this was not the case, once the salmon run was coming to an end. But while the salmon run was in full swing, give me a break. Would you try to stop the coins pouring from the one armed bandit in Vegas after it started spewing?



My goodness Agman. How many time do I have to say thanks for your help. Now go back to school and learn a bit more capitalist economics rather than finger painting.

Sorry bud, but your total ignorance is on display once again. Packers made record profits in the domestic, U.S., market in 2003 due to exceptional growth in beef demand, plus 8% that year. Your assumption that those record profits were the sole result of the border being closed is just simply wrong. You just don't get it do you? You just keep looking for some justification of your failed position. You are just wrong, have the integrity to admit it. The only thing my data has provided is clear evidence of how silly and phony your position is. The same position that you now say you cannot prove. If you have no proof of your position where does that leave you? STUFFED!!!!!!!!

 

[RobertMac]

The answer..."Packers made record profits in the domestic, U.S., market in 2003 due to exceptional growth in beef demand, plus 8% that year. Your assumption that those record profits were the sole result of the border being closed is just simply wrong."

The extra..."Sorry bud, but your total ignorance is on display once again. You just don't get it do you? You just keep looking for some justification of your failed position. You are just wrong, have the integrity to admit it. The only thing my data has provided is clear evidence of how silly and phony your position is. The same position that you now say you cannot prove. If you have no proof of your position where does that leave you? STUFFED!!!!!!!!"

And you wonder why people say you rub them the wrong way?
Relax and have a cool one, Agbuddy

 

[Anonymous]

Randy has nothing to back his position that Tyson wanted the border to stay closed. He says we have provided nothing to the contrary.

Tyson filed an amicus brief supporting the border opening.

Randy thinks that was a smokescreen.

AMI filed a lawsuit against USDA to open the border shortly after the border was closed.

Randy says Tyson and AMI are not the same.

Agman provides proof that Tyson's losses occurred after the border closed. Yes there is other factors that affect their profitability other than the closed border just as those same factors affect our cattle markets. Bottom line, their profits were lower after the border closed which is certainly more counter to Randy's position than in favor.

I provided the fact that the cattle that used to be slaughtered in Canada, were no longer available in the NW plants and those plants either shut down or cut shifts. That is a fact that nobody should try to discount. That's just common sense. Randy diverts that argument.

So what do we know? We know that Tyson's plant in Canada profited from the situation. We know that Tyson's plants that used to slaughter Canadian cattle were caught short. We know that Tyson had losses after the border closed.

What does Randy present?

NOT A DAMN THING!

"I WANNA BWAME TYSON SO WEAVE ME AWONE"


~SH~

 

[rkaiser]

Why do you talk as if you are talking to the whole world here SH. You are trying over and over again to prove your supposition from a facts that I do not argue with. I ain't buying it, and you are mad.

I did not say "soley" Agman. You're the one trying to twist the arguement with that one. Profit plus Profit equals Profit just the same as Loss plus Excessive Profit equals Profit. AND when Loss plus minor Profit started to look like Loss - Poof the magic border opens.

You are the one who says Tyson tried to put a cork in the one armed bandit.

You are the one who is trying to prove that Tyson was nothing but an ethical, helpful player.

You are the one who supposes, along with SH, that your facts lead to your assumption.

Your 2 year old name calling to try to bring a rise out of me once again proves you are boxed in SH. I said all along, I am not blaming Tyson. They only did what they neede to do to line their pockets. I know that you hate to admit that and will come back with some more garbage, but I don't care. You two have helped me to prove my point. If that doesn't sit well with you, too bad.

Thanks again Agman. And thanks to you too SH.

 

[agman]

The answer..."Packers made record profits in the domestic, U.S., market in 2003 due to exceptional growth in beef demand, plus 8% that year. Your assumption that those record profits were the sole result of the border being closed is just simply wrong."

The extra..."Sorry bud, but your total ignorance is on display once again. You just don't get it do you? You just keep looking for some justification of your failed position. You are just wrong, have the integrity to admit it. The only thing my data has provided is clear evidence of how silly and phony your position is. The same position that you now say you cannot prove. If you have no proof of your position where does that leave you? STUFFED!!!!!!!!"

And you wonder why people say you rub them the wrong way?
Relax and have a cool one, Agbuddy

With all due respect to you Robert I will not enter a gun fight with a knife. I have said previously that I will respond in kind. If someone chooses to play this way I will accommodate them although that is certainly not my preference.

I am curious why you are not concerned with someone who by his own admission cannot prove his allegations while I have provided facts to refute what claim he thinks he has. Recall he asked me to produce tha data which I did. Since then he has been dancing around a different view of the data each time. Did you not take notice? What does that say about you RM?

He certainly fits the R-Calf mold. Accusation and blame with no supporting facts. As an R-Calf member yourself I can see why you come to his defense-facts be damned. Are you still wondering why the Ninth circuit buried the Montana ruling-all accusationa and no facts? Does that sound familiar? Who benefits from misinformation and who gets harmed? If you choose to allow baseless allegations to go unchallenged that is your choice. There are good people out there who appreciate factual information and benefit from such. You have to decide which group you are in.