205 replies to this topic

[jannerboyuk]

The issue I have with Provident is not that they lend money at high interest rates, it's more that they actively seek to keep their customers in debt. It is a key part of their business model to offer new loans to pay off existing part-paid ones and keep the customers "locked in". The proportion of Provident loans that are paid up in the conventional sense is tiny.

Having said that, Rugby League simply can't afford to have moral values over this type of thing and nobody can blame Bradford for accepting this deal. Good luck to them. However it is a strange dichotomy of hoping that a major club's sponsor does not get any new business out of the deal. I hope Bradford Bulls prosper because of it, but I hope Provident do not.

to be fair that's the strategy of most banks - my bank doesn't want me to pay off my credit card any time soon but they charge 20 odd% interest PA not 3000!
Again if we cant say no to money for any morl reason im not sure how we can trumpet our ethical, values etc as being such notch above. oh well good luck to bradford anyway

[jannerboyuk]

I'm sure you are right

I would say that the rules/laws regarding gambling and the promotion of it and thoise governing hard core pornography are different. For instance you can buy a lottery ticket at sixteen, children can buy and sell raffle tickets for say school fundraising. I don't think you can shoe horn hard core pornography into the same equation somehow.

My point remains that supporters of clubs who's main sponsore specialises in tax avoiudance for the wealthy and don't say anything about it, yet like to invoke morality about aspects of the sport that don't suit them are self srving to say the least.

BUt your point is a good one: gambling, and of course alcohol abuse are major social issues

i think probiz are dodgy beyond belief - i would keep them at arms length as much because that dodginess will manifest itself in matey doing a runner after mortgaging 'the probiz coliwotsit' as much as for the tax avoidance stuff

[jannerboyuk]

BUt your point is a good one: gambling, and of course alcohol abuse are major social issues

which goes back to the choice - sadly some people to be protected from themselves, and more importantly their families need that protection - and if the advertising has no consequence, no outcome why are they paying £1.2million for it?

[Wakey Til I Die]

Good to see OMEGA's very own Wakefield having a whiter than white sponsor
*********************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************
The directors of a Scrap Metal Business that failed with total debts estimated at around £380,000 have given Undertakings not to hold directorships or take any part in company management for 4 years and 14 years respectively.

The Undertakings by Eric Ramskill France, age 69 of Cornwall House, Portland Crescent, Harrogate, and Jonathan Dean France, age 31 of Silcoates Court, Alverthorpe, Wakefield, West Yorkshire, were given in respect of their conduct as directors of Eric France & Son (Metals) Limited ("Eric France"), which carried out business from premises at Embassy Works, Church Street, Ossett, West Yorkshire, WF5 9DG.

Acceptance of the Undertakings on 26 January 2004 for Eric Ramskill France and on 30 January 2004 for Jonathan Dean France prevents them from being directors of a company or, in any way, whether directly or indirectly, being concerned or taking part in the promotion, formation or management of a company for the above periods.

Eric France & Son (Metals) Limited was placed into voluntary liquidation on 19 February 2002 with estimated debts of £380,000 owed to creditors.

The Insolvency Service, on behalf of the Secretary of State for Trade & Industry, has responsibility (under Section (6) of the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986) for the investigation of the conduct of directors of failed companies and for the disqualification of those who are considered to be unfit to be involved in the management of companies in the future.

Matters of unfit conduct, not disputed by Eric Ramskill France and Jonathan Dean France are: -

Schedule of Unfit Conduct

Eric Ramskill France

He abrogated his duties and responsibilities as a director of Eric France and

i. Failed to ensure that Eric France kept and preserved accounting records as required by the Companies Act 1985;

ii. Failed to ensure that Eric France conducted stock takes at the end of its financial years ending 31 May 1998 and 1999 as required by Section 221 (3) ( of the Companies Act 1985;

iii. Allowed Jonathan France to receive a loan from Eric France contrary to Section 330 of the Companies Act 1985;

iv. Allowed a payment of £15,000 and £25,000 to Jonathan France on 15 January 2002 to the detriment of the general body of creditors.

Jonathan Dean France

i. He failed to keep, preserve and delivery up adequate accounting records when required to do so by the Liquidator.

ii. He received a loan from Eric France, contrary to Section 330 of the Company's Act 1985.

iii. Eric France failed to conduct stock takes at the end of its financial years ending 31 May 1998 and 1999 as required by Section 212 (3) ( of the Company's Act 1985.

iv. He failed to co-operate with the liquidators enquires into the affairs and dealings of Eric France.

The same sponsor that Steve Ferres is desperatley pleading with to invest in Cas you mean?

[Steve Slater]

This debate is beyond belief! For years the RFL has been taking Murdoch's money, and fans haven't complained about that, even those that had their jobs pulled from under their feet when the pits closed, or maybe even some who were relatives of Hillsborough victims? Only Sun readers would honestly believe that anything associated with the Murdoch empire isn't crooked!

[Padge]

This debate is beyond belief! For years the RFL has been taking Murdoch's money, and fans haven't complained about that, even those that had their jobs pulled from under their feet when the pits closed, or maybe even some who were relatives of Hillsborough victims? Only Sun readers would honestly believe that anything associated with the Murdoch empire isn't crooked!

If you give a £5 back street blow job then you are a back street whore, if you give a £1000 blow job you are a high class personal escort.

[bobbruce]

If you give a £5 back street blow job then you are a back street whore, if you give a £1000 blow job you are a high class personal escort.

What you get upto on a weekend Padge is your own business. Let's try to keep this thread on topic. (;

[Johnoco]

£5?

Any change?

[l'angelo mysterioso]

This debate is beyond belief! For years the RFL has been taking Murdoch's money, and fans haven't complained about that, even those that had their jobs pulled from under their feet when the pits closed, or maybe even some who were relatives of Hillsborough victims? Only Sun readers would honestly believe that anything associated with the Murdoch empire isn't crooked!

so what are your viewsd on the morality of companies that specialise in tax avoidance for the wealthy?


fans have complained about Murdoch-check the utterings of people on your own club's 'forum', and on the more rational platforms for discussion.

Do you not detect a certain duality of standards, being 'moral', 'fair' and so on when it suits?

I'm not sure what's crooked about SKY TV but Murdoch's print media has a lot to answer for and indeed this is happening now I'm given to understand.

It isn't the actual sponsorship by tax avoidance specialists that is the issue, but the self serving duality of standards employed by various people.

[JohnM]

which sponsors are those out of interest?

One example. Wasn't a car sales company a Bulls sponsor for many years? There were 1,870 people killed and 24,770 killed or seriously injured (KSI), in reported road accidents in the year ending March 2011, plus no end of pollution caused by infernal confusion engined vehicles. Seems pretty dangerous thing to be linked with, if you ask me.

Don't Galpham, a perfectly legal and respectable company make paracetamol ( along with many other companies) ? Dangerous stuff if abused by usesr, overdoses can cause liver damage and has been used in suicides? see http://en.wikipedia....iki/Paracetamol

[JohnM]

It isn't the actual sponsorship by tax avoidance specialists that is the issue, but the self serving duality of standards employed by various people.

Exactly. The last and current governments being examples as they carry on with the HM R and Cs sales and leaseback deal with Mapley, based in a tax haven. see National Audit Office report http://www.nao.org.u...estate_pfi.aspx, as Margaret Hodge lambasts ( quite possibly she is right) Amazon etc, yet is a significant shareholder in the family business Stemcor. Analysis of Stemcor’s latest accounts show that the business paid tax of just £163,000 on revenues of more than £2.1bn in 2011.

Is this all legal? Yes.

Edited by JohnM, 15 November 2012 - 03:45 PM.

[Ant]

I said it earlier and ill say it again
Omega hasn't got a clue what he is talking about
Unless he is a finance expert as well as the NFL commercial director

I take it Omega doesnt have a credit card? Which are the worst real examples of what's commonly known as "revolving credit"?

[Mumby Magic]

Think most of the people on here arguing the to$$ over things that aren't anything to do with the thread, that are spreading other parts into arguements that aren't even there really need to get a grip on reality and stop trying to be keyboard warriors.

What happened with the Bulls and administration is for another thread but in reality £1.2 million has come into our game which has to be good doesn't it?

God only knows where some of you on here want money to come from with regards to sponsorship.

Edited by Mumby Magic, 15 November 2012 - 06:10 PM.

[The Parksider]

1. Think most of the people on here arguing the to$$ over things that aren't anything to do with the thread

2. God only knows where some of you on here want money to come from with regards to sponsorship.

1. Agreed

2. The angels

[jannerboyuk]

Think most of the people on here arguing the to$$ over things that aren't anything to do with the thread, that are spreading other parts into arguements that aren't even there really need to get a grip on reality and stop trying to be keyboard warriors.

What happened with the Bulls and administration is for another thread but in reality £1.2 million has come into our game which has to be good doesn't it?

God only knows where some of you on here want money to come from with regards to sponsorship.

yes sir sorry sir, i'll submit my post for approval next time sir

[jannerboyuk]

One example. Wasn't a car sales company a Bulls sponsor for many years? There were 1,870 people killed and 24,770 killed or seriously injured (KSI), in reported road accidents in the year ending March 2011, plus no end of pollution caused by infernal confusion engined vehicles. Seems pretty dangerous thing to be linked with, if you ask me.

Don't Galpham, a perfectly legal and respectable company make paracetamol ( along with many other companies) ? Dangerous stuff if abused by usesr, overdoses can cause liver damage and has been used in suicides? see http://en.wikipedia....iki/Paracetamol

oh dear

[Padge]

2. The angels

Does that include The Hells Angels?

[1976PMJwires]

Only in rugby league!!

[Amber Avenger]

Only in rugby league!!

What is? Complaining about sponsors isn't - see Wonga's sponsorship of Newcastle United (and others) in football. That sparked a similar debate with fans and the national press.

[JohnM]

Joe Jackson wrote a song about the ethical position on sponsorship.