According to a report from the BBC, more than 100 jobs could be created after the expansion of Unit Engineers and Constructors Ltd with significant positive knock-on effect on suppliers and sub-contractors in Wales.
More importantly, the company expects its overseas trading activity to significantly increase to make it one of the leading exporters in Wales.
For those of you who follow this site, Unit was the fastest growing firm in Wales in 2009.
Led by the irrepressible Bill Ledwood (pictured), the company has grown by 978 per cent in the period 2006-2008, and currently employs 167 people.
Read the interview with Bill following last year's Fast Growth 50 awards here.
Its latest development sees it expanding its base through the purchase of the Midlands-based firm Birwelco Ltd and Unit forecasts an annual turnover of more than £50 million for its acquisition by 2013.
Congratulations to Bill and his team and given the fantastic response to this year's competition, we will hopefully see more good news from fast growing Welsh businesses over the next few months.
Comments
Has his company ever receied a grant to help him with his start up or expansion plans? If so, I'm sure his corporation tax and PAYE payments have more than paid back the public purse.
I had a look at interviews and the company web site: I can't see a WAG or WDA logo anywhere or any acknowledgement of their involvement. I don't know if they ever did have direct subsidies, but the company doesn't seem to attribute its success to that now. Those who cannot imagine a Welsh business doing well without a WAG handout might wish to look at what went right with this company... in the articles and interviews, the company stresses its skills base, quality and safety culture, project management skills, its banking relationship (with Lloyds) and its leadership.
Anglosaxon - there's nearly a paternalist assumption in your comment that the government must have been involved. But assuming the government did put in funds, the test for value to the taxpayer is not whether it got back more in taxes than it put in, but (i) how much did that intervention change the course of the company and increase its economic footprint (was there additionality or was it deadweight/displacement), and for each success how many failures were there (overall policy effectiveness - it's no good cherry picking the successes to justify a policy that includes failure or neutral impact).
Isn't another difficulty that by the time sustained growth becomes apparent (and FG50 membership secured), banks and other sources of private capital are readily available for further expansion? So a government that uses FG50 criteria duplicates what banks do and adds little value - a subsidy to an already competitive and growing firm - a gift to shareholders from the taxpayer. Alternatively, a government might use different criteria and take a punt on those that can't attract private finance - that is, have a go at picking winners.