Hands off my chocolate Uncle Sam

[mumrar]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8468540.stm
The Cadbury board have urged shareholders to approve a revised takeover offer, which involves the American firm taking in $7bn in debt to do so. In the same breath the chief executive of Cadbury says that job losses will be inevitable, but describes this as 'a good thing' for Cadbury. This is the same chief executive who advised against a £10.5bn offer, going so far as to question Krafts ability to fund such a deal. Now that an extra £1bn is on the table, he seems to have no such worries. Pretty much everyone on here will know about Cadbury, but just to divulge.......
The business was started by John Cadbury in 1824 with the opening of a shop in Bull Street, Birmingham. He wanted to replace the populations insatiable appetite for alcohol with drinking chocolate, an honourable if not successful notion. When his sons purchased land for a new factory on the outskirts of Birmingham, which later spawned a workers village, few could have imagined what would result. Unparallelled conditions for workers of the time (this was the 1860s), it fostered a family like community between the company and staff that had never been experienced before. Staff had gardens in which to enjoy their breaks, sports fields for recreational activity, and accomodation right at the door. Today Bournville still remains a beacon of restraint, with no licensed premises or any retailer allowed to sell alcohol within the original 'Bournville village' boundaries. The company probably represents the Midlands single largest industry, still remaining independant for the time being. Shareholders have until 2nd February to back the move, and in the meantime shares are doing their usual dance in the stock market.

As you may have guessed, I totally oppose this takeover, Kraft stand to gain far more out of this deal than Cadbury ever could, and the blood-letting of another large section of the UK workforce will not help the financial situation of many families. My grandfather spent over thirty years working for the firm and always spoke with immense pride at the mention of the Cadbury name. Ironically he never could sample just how good their products were, being diagnosed diabetic at the age of 9.

I'm interested to hear other peoples thoughts on this. For the first time ever I intend to start a Facebook protest group, and I want it to be very active, with one achievable aim of stopping the takeover. If one alreadt exists in strength, I shall join it and post a link urging others to do the same.

 

[devon_metro]

A great shame, some of my family has previously worked in the Bourneville factory many moons ago.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

As an interesting fact, all the major confectioners (Cadbury's Fry's and Rowntree's) were owned and run by Quakers...

 

[Dennis]

As an interesting fact, all the major confectioners (Cadbury's Fry's and Rowntree's) were owned and run by Quakers...

And Quakers are now better known for their delicious oats.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Ah, the company was named after the Quakers and actually have no affiliation with them.

Trivia, don't'cha love it?

 

[Daimler]

I saw the news this morning - it's very sad, I think. It's hackneyed to describe something as 'a British institution' but in the case of Cadbury, it's justified. To see their independence lost is extremely disappointing.

 

[37401]

Takes the p*** dont it, I remember going into the factory when I was a wee one, loved it and now all we`ll have is the bland taste of american tripe.

 

[mumrar]

I don't think they'd dare mess with Dairy Milk. Regulation differences permits 'chocolate' in America to contain a minumum 10% cocoa solids, here it has to be 20%. Hershey's is 11, and Dairy Milk 23, the Hershey one contains more sugar (surprised?) and tastes 5h!t in to the bargain!

 

[37401]

I don't think they'd dare mess with Dairy Milk. Regulation differences permits 'chocolate' in America to contain a minumum 10% cocoa solids, here it has to be 20%. Hershey's is 11, and Dairy Milk 23, the Hershey one contains more sugar (surprised?) and tastes 5h!t in to the bargain!

Yeah, I had some herseys once wasnt anything special, Bornville is one heck of a chocolate bar, im guessing it`ll get re-named now. wonka bar will get re-named "George bush" or "w*nka bar for short" :P (I know its obama but i wanted to say that)

re-named chocolate thread anyone?

 

[43034 The Black Horse]

Takes the p*** dont it, I remember going into the factory when I was a wee one, loved it and now all we`ll have is the bland taste of american tripe.

A fond memory of my (younger) youth too. Was a good day out there, nice to 'test taste' too!

 

[Pumbaa]

While from a nationalistic POV it is sad to see one of the last remaining brands be swallowed up, I'm all for it.

Kraft know that severe asset stripping will cause political repercussion, so Bourneville workers can sleep easy for a few years at least. Besides, there's nothing we can do about it. Accept it as another business deal like countless others that have occurred.

On the other hand, I'm a little peeved the deal was finalised so soon. I imagined that the deal could be pushed will into the 900pps, ah well, still made a tidy sum!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I don't think they'd dare mess with Dairy Milk. Regulation differences permits 'chocolate' in America to contain a minumum 10% cocoa solids, here it has to be 20%. Hershey's is 11, and Dairy Milk 23, the Hershey one contains more sugar (surprised?) and tastes 5h!t in to the bargain!

You're right. No product will change, there will be a drive for greater efficiency, resulting in job losses and factory closures later on, but ultimately all that changes is the big daddy, the big boss and whos pocket gets lined.

 

[Metroland]

It's a great shame that companies are bought out and absorbed into much larger (often foreign) concerns. But that's global capitalism for you.

I'm certainly not for the 'other system', but I do think there is a case for limiting the size of companies.

It makes no economic or social sense to have companies that are 'too big to fail', or suck the money out of everything they touch by switching manufacturing/processing to the cheapest country where workers have poor protection or standards are low. Or making chocolate in Poland and shipping it here., because its 1p cheaper.

We have a government that raves on about pollution and congestion, but the basic economic system actually promotes more food/goods miles, with no reference to job losses or social well being here.

It's also very hard for new, smaller companies to compete with these large conglomerates, which means less choice, less small business start-ups, often lower wages, capital and patents switched to the hands of the few rather than the many.

One of the great mistakes of New Labour is to allow the growth of these super corporations, which is why we've had one of the biggest booms and the biggest busts. The rich have also got richer, and poor less well off, continuing the Thatcher/Major years. Everything gets centralised, and people feel they have less control over their lives and great suspicion over big government and big business - which is why there is so much cynicism/negativity about.

 

[37401]

I think the UK has gone down the pan, big time, soon I think the only thing we can call ours is the independant car companies such as caterham...if that , too much british workmanship/labour gone to other contries

 

[Pumbaa]

It's a great shame that companies are bought out and absorbed into much larger (often foreign) concerns. But that's global capitalism for you.

I'm certainly not for the 'other system', but I do think there is a case for limiting the size of companies.

It makes no economic or social sense to have companies that are 'too big to fail', or suck the money out of everything they touch by switching manufacturing/processing to the cheapest country where workers have poor protection or standards are low. Or making chocolate in Poland and shipping it here., because its 1p cheaper.

True. One of my current misgivings about the current BA/Iberia deal is that neither can sit on their own arse, but by merging operationally and hoping to drive down costs by sharing airport operations is just gonna happen. One of them fart, the other will shart and then we'll have a right big mess to sort out.

We have a government that raves on about pollution and congestion, but the basic economic system actually promotes more food/goods miles, with no reference to job losses or social well being here.

It's well documented by themselves and by Joe Public, biggest problem is that with businesses lining the Govts pocket, it's in the Govt best interest to simply say "ah well".

It's also very hard for new, smaller companies to compete with these large conglomerates, which means less choice, less small business start-ups, often lower wages, capital and patents switched to the hands of the few rather than the many.

And we wonder why Copenhagen failed?! It's ridiculous I know. I remember looking at the E.Mkts. in central African nations, at the time it was a case of 'holding breath'. The way it turned out one entered one of the worst civil crises the world has ever seen, and the other one managed to do alright out of it for a while, until the Govt saw fit to channel money off for itself and then bugger off. Guess which one initially was promised support from Conglm. and MNCs? Give you a hint, DRoC!

One of the great mistakes of New Labour is to allow the growth of these super corporations, which is why we've had one of the biggest booms and the biggest busts. The rich have also got richer, and poor less well off, continuing the Thatcher/Major years. Everything gets centralised, and people feel they have less control over their lives and great suspicion over big government and big business - which is why there is so much cynicism/negativity about.

Another failure of Blue Labour, but as much as they try and spin it out, not much is going to change with the incoming Govt. We all know the divides are only going to widen, they're promising huge cuts in all areas, centralisation and limiting principal agent influence is the default way of doing this. Spin spin spin and spin!

 

[O L Leigh]

This is a story as old as the hills. Small niche manufacturer gets bought up by slightly larger firm to add the niche product to their range who in turn gets bought out by a yet larger company, and so on ad infinitum.

While it's sad that jobs will be lost as a consequence, this also is not new. There used to be a Rowntree's factory in Norwich until the 1994 when production was moved to York following the Nestle takeover of 1988, though this factory was itself closed ten years later with all production being moved out of the UK. Such is the way of multi-national business.

I can't get excited about this or work up much of an indignant rage. Equally I can't see much point blaming this or any other government for it as this sort of thing has happened for decades under all economic conditions and administrations of every stripe.

O L Leigh

 

[Geezertronic]

I saw the news this morning - it's very sad, I think. It's hackneyed to describe something as 'a British institution' but in the case of Cadbury, it's justified. To see their independence lost is extremely disappointing.

You couldn't really call Cadburys a British Institution since they were merged with Schweppes for almost 30 years

I used to work at the Data Centre at the back of the Bournville site and walked from Bournville Station around the factory to get there. The smell of chocolate always made me hungry. You could get a pass for the Cadburys staff shop which was always useful around Easter, in fact any time of the year

I was amazed at first that there were no off-licenses or pubs in the Bournville area - I suppose the locals still want to keep that the same

 

[mumrar]

although they merged with schweppes, cadbury were the larger firm and the ones who took over as such. Would you not have considered Rover British if they had bought out Honda for example?

 

[gordonthemoron]

I was amazed at first that there were no off-licenses or pubs in the Bournville area - I suppose the locals still want to keep that the same

There is probably some sort of restrictive covenant on property in Bournville to prevent them being able to sell alchohol, there certainly was on my house in Darlington. Both Bourneville & Darlington were largely built by quakers

 

[142094]

although they merged with schweppes, cadbury were the larger firm and the ones who took over as such. Would you not have considered Rover British if they had bought out Honda for example?

I thought Cadbury's and Schweppes had divested recently into two seperate companies?

On another note, isn't Bourneville dark choclate made in France nowadays?

 

[Geezertronic]

although they merged with schweppes, cadbury were the larger firm and the ones who took over as such. Would you not have considered Rover British if they had bought out Honda for example?

Since Cadburys has an American CEO, I would suggest the American influence is still within Cadburys

I doubt Rover would have ever had the balls or the finances to try and buy Honda out, more like the other way round if what I have read is true (hence the buyout by BMW as Honda did not want to take ownership of Rover).

 

[SouthEastern-465]

I think Cadburys had gone down hill anyway if I am honest there choclate did not taste the same as it use to (To me it did not anyway) and the size of there products got smaller to I really could not care anyway atleast if an American company took it over maybe there choclate products will get bigger and maybe make it a better company altogether.

 

[gordonthemoron]

and I'm sure that curlywurlys were bigger when I were a kid

 

[SouthEastern-465]

and I'm sure that curlywurlys were bigger when I were a kid

And the Cadbury Cream Eggs were bigger when I was a kid plus the fredo bars which have got smaller and cost more than they use too.

 

[yorkie]

It's disgusting, and our Government are supporting this bid by loaning money to the Americans to ensure that British jobs go.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8470776.stm

If the Americans can't afford it they should be told to bugger off!

So basically this Government is making money out of thin air (Oh, sorry, it's okay because it has a fancy name "quantitative easement") and effectively handing this invented money to a debt-ridden company from one of the world's most in-debt countries to end many decades of tradition and make more people jobless.

Unbelievable.

 

[O L Leigh]

You've paraphrased a fair bit there which only muddies the water.

The Government is not funding the takeover; the loan is coming from RBS. The extent to which this bank is owned by the public has little or nothing to do with how it conducts it's business or who it makes loans to, and it certainly does not mandate the Government to go wading in all heavy-handed and interfering with it's business. This is something that all MP's understand. All they are doing is creating a lot of noise by using a popular cause.

It is also not a case of being "unable to afford" the purchase. It is standard business practice to raise the money for buy-outs in the form of loans or borrowing against capital.

O L Leigh

 

[Metroland]

So basically this Government is making money out of thin air (Oh, sorry, it's okay because it has a fancy name "quantitative easement") and effectively handing this invented money to a debt-ridden company from one of the world's most in-debt countries to end many decades of tradition and make more people jobless.

Well the whole thing is a scam really. If you put £10 in a bank they can lend out £100 to someone else and charge money for it, again, creating money out of thin air. In fact on the run up to the financial bust, they were lending out over double that. And that was the root of the problem.

Until economics reflects quality of life, you will always get these problems. Unfortunately global capitalism in its current form is effectively a land/resource grab. Allowing rich countries and people to speculate and own as much as possible and shifting it out the hands of the poor (whether than be land, copyright, patents, even life forms). This allowing the rich and better off to treat the rest of the planets population and lifeforms as renters on their planet.

Resource grabs and social division eventually leads to societal collapse, revolutions and eventually war and social breakdown and has done throughout the whole of history.

Free markets are wonderful things, but they need very careful regulation.

 

[mumrar]

Are you sure the Creme eggs don't seem smaller because you're bigger lol? This is a common practice to keep the printed price on the packaging the same for longer. As costs rise, the only way to make the same profit for the same retail price is to alter the size slightly. Has happened with my beloved were 5p, were 10p, now 15p crisps such as Oinks and Cheesy Nibbles. My main gripe with this is that Cadbury don't need the takeover, and will only have their name eroded by it. Only 15% of Cadburys workforce is in the UK, but I'm guessing the figure will now reduce further. It seems one of the big problems of the credit crunch will not go away, we suffered for relying so heavily on imports, foreign workers and an individual currency. Don't even get me started on banking though.

 

[gordonthemoron]

what happens when the UK runs out of assets to flog off?

 

[Geezertronic]

I guess it is the same with some TOCs and FOCs though, foreign ownership seems to be the way everything is going these days - same with Football clubs...

 

[yorkie]

what happens when the UK runs out of assets to flog off?

Invent more money. Err, I mean, do more quantitative easing.