205 replies to this topic

[Gav Wilson]

nobody used to force kids up chimneys or miners down the pits, exploitation is gaining from the circumstances people find themselves in otherwise slavery would be the only thing to be called exploitation. its not a synonym for oppression

They are providing a service that folk have a choice to use. Folk also have a choice not to use it too.

I don't see a problem with that.

[jannerboyuk]

They are providing a service that folk have a choice to use. Folk also have a choice not to use it too.

I don't see a problem with that.

some people need to be protected from themselves, sad but true. i work for an autism charity with plenty of vulnerable people easily exploited by the unscrupulous and i dont see the problem with some easy peasy legislation just to take the edge off. usury has been curtailed or illegal many times for very good reasons and i rather have a bit of robust regulation then dog eat dog

[jannerboyuk]

On balance i think bradford being between a rock and hard place have probably made a right choice but i wonder what limit, if any, our resident freepers would see as beyond the pale? is there any money league would reject for anything resembling a moral reason?

[Gav Wilson]

some people need to be protected from themselves, sad but true. i work for an autism charity with plenty of vulnerable people easily exploited by the unscrupulous and i dont see the problem with some easy peasy legislation just to take the edge off. usury has been curtailed or illegal many times for very good reasons and i rather have a bit of robust regulation then dog eat dog

I don't disagree with that to be fair. A lot of folk that use these services though are the one's that will happily spend £30 or more in the pub every Friday night and £35 a week on fags and then moan when they are short before payday. (Massive generalisation I know)

Neither scenario are really Bradford Bull's problem are they?

[jannerboyuk]

I don't disagree with that to be fair. A lot of folk that use these services though are the one's that will happily spend £30 or more in the pub every Friday night and £35 a week on fags and then moan when they are short before payday. (Massive generalisation I know)

Neither scenario are really Bradford Bull's problem are they?

maybe not but they wouldnt be the ones we are defending, but maybe their kids who dont have this magical thing called choice. there is a limit but we have a legal industry where regulating them would be easy. so why not?

i dont really blame bradford but i think its fair to pause and feel uncomfortable, like i said on balance im happy for the bulls to be getting the investment they need but there are more important things then sport

[jannerboyuk]

I don't disagree with that to be fair. A lot of folk that use these services though are the one's that will happily spend £30 or more in the pub every Friday night and £35 a week on fags and then moan when they are short before payday. (Massive generalisation I know)

Neither scenario are really Bradford Bull's problem are they?

one more thing on morality though. if its not the responsibility of the sport then why does league bombard us with moral messages? why do we always talk about the impact on society for the good, lives turned round (good press coverage today for the north wales crusaders for starting street rugby in deprived areas), why do i pay into rl cares - people choose to play a dangerous sport they know is dangerous - sod 'em not my problem (?). if morality is only relevant when millions isnt at stake then it isnt morality. just my opinion of course

[steef]

As someone who has, until very recently, been living virtually on the brink of being bankrupt for several years, I would not have gotten by without a few short term or payday loans. They have been the most upfront loan companies I've ever had dealings with. Expensive? Yes, very, but they don't hide from the fact the cost is plastered all over the websites. They're hardly conning anyone. Also, I recently read that Wonga regect over half of the applications they receive, so hardly irresponsible.

As for the deal, fantastic news for the Bulls and the game.

[Konkrete]

Good grief there's some high handedness going on in this thread. We'll take the sponsorship thanks.

I suspect most people on here have no idea what they're talking about when it comes to this perfectly legal company that are providing a lot of jobs in a run down deserted city.

However you feel about companies that provide this type of service, if they weren't there then the people that use them would probably be borrowing off the local gangster. So get over yourselves.

[Johnoco]

Correct Konkrete. Particularly the run down city bit.

[Lounge Room Lizard]

what is your view of the morality of companies such as probiz that specialise in tax avoidance schemes for the wealthy. I understand your club has had a connectioin with them. Featherstone Rovers whos supporters whine loud and long about 'morality' have probiz as a main sponsor. Yet there have been no pronouncements regarding 'morality' in connexion with this from these people.

I didnt agree with it and how Probiz do things Chris. I think they take advantage of situations and use people. Allegedly they wanted to have access to the Halifax fan base.The Fax board said no and Probiz left. The thing about Probiz is the guy seems to be very untrustworthy. How many clubs has he sponsored or tried to be involved with in the past 4 years or so? Fax, Fev, Cas as well as sponsoring Wigan in some way. He didnt last long at Fax or Cas. Why should he stay around Fev for much longer? When I looked at what Probiz did I didnt think it was right for Halifax to be invoolved with him. Thankfully he wasnt around long. Halifax didnt need him to keep going. Bradford probably in all honesty have tried looking for sponsors and struggled. They certainly need cash to get some stability and platform set for the future. Having already taken some of the Sky money they will be short of cash in the short term.

Its OK to say people have a choice to take a lone or not, but sadly these loans companies for me, prey on and use vulnarable people who have got themselves in a mess and cant think straight. Theres is nothing wrong with a loan as such and at times they are needed to help keep a car on the road so you can get to work etc. The problem is when somebody takes on a loan they really cant afford. And often these types of companys put pressure on people saying why they need a loan when often they dont- they just need to sort themselves out and get control of any debts they have or actually put money away until they can afford to buy whatever they want. I dont have anytime for such companies due to often how they act and use people.

[Dave T]

Doorstep lenders offering loans with an APR of over 500%.

No, they're lovely people. Knock yourselves out.

Nice shirt. Shame about the leaches on the front of it.

Come on GJ, you know that APR's are not the best way to illustrate the charges for short term loans.

If these companies had to charge apr's similar to personal loans then they'd make around a fiver for a 300 pound loan, and there'd be no market and this would be underground as it was previously.

These kind of companies are often muxh more upfront about the fees they charge than major lenders.

[l'angelo mysterioso]

I didnt agree with it and how Probiz do things Chris. I think they take advantage of situations and use people. Allegedly they wanted to have access to the Halifax fan base.The Fax board said no and Probiz left. The thing about Probiz is the guy seems to be very untrustworthy. How many clubs has he sponsored or tried to be involved with in the past 4 years or so? Fax, Fev, Cas as well as sponsoring Wigan in some way. He didnt last long at Fax or Cas. Why should he stay around Fev for much longer? When I looked at what Probiz did I didnt think it was right for Halifax to be invoolved with him. Thankfully he wasnt around long. Halifax didnt need him to keep going. Bradford probably in all honesty have tried looking for sponsors and struggled. They certainly need cash to get some stability and platform set for the future. Having already taken some of the Sky money they will be short of cash in the short term.

Its OK to say people have a choice to take a lone or not, but sadly these loans companies for me, prey on and use vulnarable people who have got themselves in a mess and cant think straight. Theres is nothing wrong with a loan as such and at times they are needed to help keep a car on the road so you can get to work etc. The problem is when somebody takes on a loan they really cant afford. And often these types of companys put pressure on people saying why they need a loan when often they dont- they just need to sort themselves out and get control of any debts they have or actually put money away until they can afford to buy whatever they want. I dont have anytime for such companies due to often how they act and use people.

Mate I know where you are coming from,


my point is that there are people especially from my own former club who use the term morality, justice fairness and so on to give their own views on the game gravitas, and validity, but those people haven't uttered a word about their own club having a major benefactor that specialises in tax avoidance for the extremely wealthy.

Those same people were gloating that the Bulls were on their arses a few weeks ago, and that it symbolised the death of pro Rugby :eague. How things have chabged. Well done Bradford Bulls.

[The Parksider]

my point is that there are people especially from my own former club who use the term morality, justice fairness and so on to give their own views on the game gravitas, and validity, but those people haven't uttered a word about their own club having a major benefactor that specialises in tax avoidance for the extremely wealthy.

Nice to see you firing on all cylinders. There's two sides to the argument but what these people on either side do is sadly legal and so the subject should not for me be one for debate here. AOB.

[l'angelo mysterioso]

Nice to see you firing on all cylinders. There's two sides to the argument but what these people on either side do is sadly legal and so the subject should not for me be one for debate here. AOB.

quite

but for me the subject is the self serving double standards.

[ckn]

Robust debate about the morality of sponsorship is perfectly acceptable, making it personal about other posters is not. A very broad brush moderation done on the fly that has probably been a bit over-zealous but I've run out of time to be precise.

[slowdive]

Suddenly Bradford seem to be sitting pretty after nearly going out of existence. A large sponsor, crowds of over 10k and rent of only 90000. Things are looking good but it seems the margins between success and failure aren't that big.

[markleeds]

They should have approached RBS who sponsor the Six Nations, oh hang on, didn't they nearly cripple a whole nation and get bailed out to the tune of billions?

[Stan Doffarf]

They should have approached RBS who sponsor the Six Nations, oh hang on, didn't they nearly cripple a whole nation and get bailed out to the tune of billions?

Ah yes, the very same RBS which pulled the Bulls' overdraft and precipitated the whole administration crisis. Although it would probably have happened sometime anyway.

You know, I came on here thinking the Bulls had signed a brilliant sponsorship deal, only to find instead that the club has sold its soul to the devil. There's enough ignorance, arrogance and hypocrisy on this thread to fill a Stephen Jones aricle.

So, about Provident. I'll declare an interest up front. When my Dad was demobbed in 1945 he went to work for Provident, and stayed there for over thirty years, so as a child my entire livelihood depended on that company. I even worked for them myself for a couple of years in the early seventies. As kids we used to enjoy the Christmas party the firm paid for, and my Dad enjoyed the annual staff trip to London they also paid for. Up in my spare bedroom there's a Wedgewood table lighter, suitably engraved, which staff were given to celebrate the Coronation in 1953. It was a family company (the Waddilove family) until flotation about fifty years ago.

Provident was founded in Bradford in 1880. That's 132 years of business. It's not an opportunistic web-based payday loan outfit. It operates on a very old-fashioned business model, a national network of agents dealing directly with customers, a personal relationship which many people still prefer and trust. Its market is the lower paid, those in insecure employment, those in rented accommodation. Those, in fact, which the High Street banks are not interested in, but who nevertheless sometimes need or want to borrow money, relatively small amounts on a short-term basis, and who want to pay weekly. I suspect its customer demographic will not be too dissimilar to that of the sport of Rugby League. Because it's relatively high risk lending, and operates on a labour intensive basis, its interest charges are high. Having said that they are nowhere near the rates charged by the payday lenders. The best known of the payday lenders is Wonga.com, founded by a right wing nutjob whose crazed ideas on employment rights are currently finding favour with the Tories in government.

I also have to say that, whilst Provident have had the occasional controversy in their lengthy history, one thing they haven't done is bring the economy of the Western hemisphere to its knees by casino-style lending, neither does it pay its executives telephone number bonuses after being bailed out by the taxpayer. It operates in a highly regulated industry and complies with the Consumer Credit Act, The Financial Services Act, the Data Protection Act etc.

If all that sounds like a puff piece then I apologise. I just felt a few people needed to be set straight. And after writing it, I'm still very happy about the sponsorship deal.

[Johnoco]

Stan, you are needed on the new strip thread. Someone called Omega is blowing a gasket.

[OMEGA]

I don't care how much money they're providing for this deal, it's absolutely shameful that a loan shark company that preys on the most financially vulnerable of society is allowed to sponsor any part of our game.

That their sponsorship should be held up as ground breaking and lauded as something good is perverse IMO.

They are parasites in the same mould as Wonga and I find it ironic that the people running our game see Betfair as an unsuitable partner yet welcome an unscrupulous organisation that's profiteering from people's financial difficulties.

I'm ashamed that this has been allowed.