Talk:Kedco/Archive 1

Archive 1

Kedco

The company is well known in Cork (and presumably nationwide) for basically being a supplier of other manufacturer's products under their own name. They did spend a lot on advertising trying to get into the market but didn't get a decent return, and left a lot of their staff go recently. It's fair to say therefore that they failed to gain a foothold in the Irish market.

I seriously don't think this article should be in an encyclopedia, it is just advertising.

An example of the way they pass other manufacturer's products as their own can be found here:

[1]Hiberniae (talk) 09:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Dear Hiberniae (Mr McGinley?), The above may be true if Kedco claimed to be a manufacturer of boilers. The company's business is in bio-energy, the boiler is merely a method of consuming wood pellets distributed by Kedco. I see no evidence, other than your blog (which is unsubstantiated), of Kedco claiming to manufacture boilers. Kedco is listed on the London Stock Exchange's AIM and is as eligible for inclusion in Wikipedia as is any such company. If you have a personal grudge against the company please use another forum other than Wikipedia to broadcast your opinion Seamus72 (talk) 14:18, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

No Evidence?

So why rebrand and repaint the boilers then, unless they wanted to give the impression that Kedco manufactured them? Other companies which supply the same make of boilers don't set out to deceive the public and instead sell the boilers as Opop boilers. Kerry bio fuels being one example.

I have no personal grudge against Kedco per se, I have problems with underhand tactics like that. None of what I have said is "my personal opinion" - it is an established fact that Kedco are nothing more than distributors (and expensive ones at that) of other company's products. It is also well known that they have let a lot of their staff leave recently after failing to crack the Irish market. The fact that there is no press release publicising it doesn't make it any less of a fact. In addition, some of the stoves they supply are manufactured by Edilkamin but again Kedco try and pass them off as their own. Hiberniae (talk) 16:41, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

response

Mr McGinley, The substantive issue is whether your edits on the page are accurate or not. If a company like Opop makes boilers for another such as Kedco that is common business practice and does not back your claim that "this article should (not) be in an encyclopedia".

Following your "logic" would you suggest the Tesco page should also be removed because they sell milk under the Tesco brand even though it is produced by other companies such as Glanbia?

I have no idea what commercial arrangements exist between Opop and Kedco but your accusation of improper behaviour is not backed up by any notable reference other than your own blog

Seamus72 (talk) 19:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

References

There you go, I have found you some references. Since I am not a professional wikipedia editor you might want to tidy them up.

As for the blog, anyone with half an eye would see the boilers are the same. As a photo comparison it is a useful reference, but I checked on the OPOP website and Kedco are listed as suppliers. So both references are there.

Their press release announcing their flotation gives information on the two parts of the business - Kedco Power (commercial) and Kedco Energy (domestic). The company admits that kedco power is now the main part of their business which backs up my claim that they failed to crack the Irish market. However since there is no press release on letting most of their sales staff go, I'll leave that out. The dogs in the street are no good for encyclopedia references. Hiberniae (talk) 10:54, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Further proof

Kedco registered themselves as Wood Pellet Boiler manufacturers with Sustainable Energy Ireland, despite the fact that the boiler they sell is nothing more than a repainted opop boiler. On the Greener Homes Scheme product list, they are registered as manufacturers of the Kedco boiler. Not as distributors. Manufacturers.Hiberniae (talk) 12:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

relevance

Dear Mr McGinley, I never disputed the accuracy or not of the origination of the boilers. I contested your assertion that "this article should (not) be in an encyclopedia" based on nothing but your own blog. See my tesco-milk example above to refresh your memory on my point. Thank you for adding additional references, I have tidied them up and added text to the specific references (someone else had already made other changes but had not tidied up the links) I also removed a claim that Kedco were nolonger going to be involved in the domestic (as opposed to commercial) market as the citation did not back it up. Feel free to re-insert the section if you can add credible citation

Seamus72 (talk) 13:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Relevant

You misunderstand me. I do not seek the removal of the Kedco article on the grounds that they don't make their own boilers. I think it should be removed because there is nothing noteworthy about the company. Tesco is a major retailer and is so large that it has a significant economic impact wherever it is. Kedco is a bit player and does nothing noteworthy. Its boilers are someone elses, its stoves are someone elses, it is nothing more than a distributor, and this is an encyclopedia, not an advertising page. Opop does not have a wikipedia mention, and they are more noteworthy than Kedco.

It is fair to say that the Domestic market will be small potatoes for Kedco now. I'm going to put that back in. I'm also going to remove the rubbish excuse that being listed as manufacturers for a boiler they do not actually manufacture somehow allows them "to concentrate on the identification and procurement of renewable energy technologies and products rather than hardware such as boilers". What nonsense. How does it? And how would a more truthful registration (i.e. that they are distributors, not manufacturers) stop them from doing the same thing? And what is the difference between a renewable energy product and hardware? The Opop boiler is "product", isn't it?

FACT: Kedco promote the boilers they sell as their own, not as OPOP. FACT: Kedco deliberately registered with the SEI as manufacturers rather than as suppliers. FACT: Kedco do not attach much weight to the domestic market any more.

I'll leave it to the reader to the decide why. However the third fact is noteworthy and is going back in. If you want to rephrase it, fine, but removing it would suggest that you have a vested interest here. Hiberniae (talk) 19:48, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

response

I have no vested interest and just placed a "Watch" on the page following your vandalism when you defaced the name of the CEO of the company in the following edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kedco&oldid=257322920 . This suggested a personal agenda on your part against the company or associated personnel. This type of vandalism will always attract attention from genuine editors who wish to uphold the integrity of wikipedia.

I have no problem with your most recent edit and take no issue with you pointing out (and correctly referencing) that the company has a new focus. (Although I did change the timescale from 2 to 3 years based on your reference however.)

As I said earlier I have no idea what commercial arrangement Kedco have with Opop, however the reference you provided suggests that Opop make boilers for Kedco who are authorised to sell them in Ireland. The Tesco example was not to suggest that Kedco are as big as Tesco but to point out that "own branding/own labeling" is a common business practice and one that is completely acceptable in Ireland.

The page qualifies for inclusion in wikipedia by virtue of its listing on the AIM of the London Stock Exchange.

Seamus72 (talk) 21:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

More responses

Seamus72 - are you editing my posts on this talk page? This I have a big problem with. I have edited it back. It is a breach of the talk page rules.

Someone raised the possibility of SEI registering Kedco as manufacturers rather than Kedco itself. SEI have told me that can't be done. It is the company's responsibility to register themselves as manufacturers or suppliers. SEI do not make a value judgement in things like this. Some companies (Gerkros, Firebird) are manufacturers and are listed as such. Others, such as Energymaster, are registered as suppliers for another brand of product. This is what Kedco are - suppliers. Not manufacturers. They are on the manufacturers list because they requested it (no other way to get on it). Why pretend to manufacture something if they don't do it?

If the article is staying up it should show the truth, warts and all. The edit of the CEO's name was a protest against other edits which attempted to sweep unconfortable truths under the carpet. I am determined that the renewable energy industry, not just this one company, should be open to scrutiny. That is my agenda.

There really is no other way (other than Kedco trying to pull a fast one) to register as manufacturers with SEI. It doesn't say much for SEI's verification procedures but that's another issue.

And shouldn't the claim of "advanced, proven, bio-scientific technologies" have a citation too?

I stand by my opinion (and others have expressed similar opinions) that it's not noteworthy as an article. But if it is an article, let it be a proper article, and not some silly advertising page. Hiberniae (talk) 22:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The AIM

I've taken a look through some of the articles on companies listed on the AIM. They generally try, at least, to show why inclusion is noteworthy.

Eg- Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) is North America’s only voluntary, legally binding greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction and trading system for emission sources and offset projects in North America and Brazil.

Booker Group plc is the United Kingdom's largest food wholesale operator.

Falkland Islands Holdings plc (FIH) is a company which plays a key role in the economy of the Falkland Islands.

All these companies are noteworthy in some respect. That, presumably, is why they have articles. By comparison, Kedco is a small, unimportant bit player.

If people want to leave it in, fine, but let someone come up with a reason for it beyond just the AIM. Hiberniae (talk) 22:53, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Agenda?

Hiberniae,

I'd have to seriously question your agenda here. As pointed out by another editor above, you have previously engaged in vandalism which you excused as a "protest". Vandalism is never a valid form of protest in wikipedia! Now you enter a fairly serious "claim" that I can find no backup for. I have amended your entry to make it factually correct and without any "opinion" 195.189.181.150 (talk) 21:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

My agenda? The truth

As I have said before, I seek to merely show the truth in the renewable energy sector in Ireland and expose the Gombeenism and rip offs that plague the industry. I do this because I believe in renewable energy and I believe Ireland needs to embrace it - but in order for that to happen the truth must be told warts and all. And your agenda is?...

With regard to my claim, it is not mine at all, but lifted straight from the January issue of Businessplus magazine. Only the content page is available on the web but the magazine is available all across the country. It shows that Kedco has yet to make a profit and to quote directly from the article "the company's finances were in dire straits until FBD arrived on the scene a few months ago with a 7 million Euro investment". Well if that doesn't show a company making serious losses I don't know what does. It's on page 36 if the January issue. --Hiberniae (talk) 10:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

your claim

Nowhere does the article use "in danger of collapse unless it can attract new investors in 2009" as your biased edit stated You have now contracdicted that by saying they have already been saved by FBD. Which is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.189.181.150 (talk) 18:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Businessplus Article

Saved by FBD? FBD is not in the business of saving the company unless it can make a profit. Kedco would most likely have collapsed last year if it was not for FBD. As you admit yourself, FBD "saved" them. Forgive me, but if you're going to be "saved" you have to be in danger. Has the danger gone away? No. Kedco is still loss making. All FBD have done is given Kedco a bit more time. Kedco have not delivered profits for their investors, and as Mr. Buckley states "the only way to gain credibility is to deliver".

If ANY company can't turn a profit, that company will fail. Kedco has yet to turn a profit, it lives off loans - as the article states "in addition to bank loans, Kedco has been funded by equity and loans by investors". The investors and FBD will presumably not wait forever - as the article puts it "whether they get out of jail depends on AIM investors rising to the bait when the company goes on the market". So far, the share price has not gone up. There is thus nothing biased about saying the company is in trouble. I stand by my statement.

PS: you should really sign up for an account. I see your computer was used to edit the "list of male gay porn stars" article as well as the flyglobespan article. Not the best way to attract business.

--Hiberniae (talk) 19:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

You having a laugh?

Quote: Hiberniae:"So far, the share price has not gone up. There is thus nothing biased about saying the company is in trouble."

I'm glad I do not get my financial advice from you. The Stock price of most corporations listed on world stock markets in the last 3 years "has not gone up". Are you saying they are all "in trouble". Some have significantly out performed the market. I don't know anything about this London-listed Kedco corporation but you cannot say it is in "danger of collapse" in wikipedia without a proper source. Inferences from your reading of a business periodical are not sources. If you also draw on the inference that the FBD corporation wouldn't invest in "unless it can make a profit" does this not suggest that the Kedco corporation is not in fact in "danger of collapse"?

- Please stick to the facts in wikipedia 68.166.120.188 (talk) 14:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Well it is a fact that Kedco is making a loss, and has been making a loss for the past two years. FACT. Kedco were in trouble until being bailed out by FBD. FACT Kedco has floated on the AIM, but so far has not raised any significant finance from doing so. FACT.

Now it's more than just 'drawing an inference' to say that the company will end up in trouble again if it doesn't show a move back towards profitability. It's plain common sense. No company can exist for long without making a profit. Kedco has definately not "significantly outperformed the market". It is early days yet, but so far nothing good is happening to those shares. If the company can't raise money from the AIM, it will not be able to achieve it's "vision" of developing microgeneration plants. Therefore this year is critical.

--Hiberniae (talk) 16:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits

I have removed the most recent edits. I see no reason why factual material dealing with the losses incurred by Kedco should not be shown. This is an encyclopedia article, not an advert. Inconvenient truths should not be censored

I have also removed the "was" that was inserted in the sentence on being registered as wood pellet boiler manufacturers. --Hiberniae (talk) 18:25, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Again the page has been vandalised - I've reported the poster who removed the content on June 18th. There is no need for it to be removed, it is factually correct and referenced. If you wish to add to it (perhaps by updating the financial situation of Kedco) then do so. If you can't add anything, leave it alone. --Hiberniae (talk) 16:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)