Jump to content





Photo
- - - - -

Warning: Potential Bradford Good News Story


  • Please log in to reply
205 replies to this topic

#101 Ackroman

Ackroman
  • Coach
  • 1,964 posts

Posted 11 November 2012 - 09:27 AM

Generally speaking sponsorship it's most often a desire to grow sales via a captive and relevant audience and there are relatively few high brow industries looking to capture the interest of a RL audience via sponsorship. Remove cigs, alcohol etc and there's little left. For me there's no differential between Provident or the Halifax for example. Both institutions are happy to squeeze the life out of there customers for financial gain and neither can claim to operate from a morally high level, although both would I'm sure like to claim legal compliance.

Looking across the SL sponsorships we have a range from solicitors (nice people if you can afford them), to cash for gold porn brokers who exploit the same vunerable people as pay day loan people, so unless the RFL produce a moral code they can afford then the debate is pointless.

#102 Ant

Ant
  • Coach
  • 3,208 posts

Posted 11 November 2012 - 10:18 AM

Given beer sponsorship isn't illegal like tobacco, why aren't RL clubs sponsored by them any more?

Also, Omega, you don't know what your talking about in relation to Short Term Loan Companies either. Seriously you haven't got a clue.

#103 Just Browny

Just Browny
  • Coach
  • 11,842 posts

Posted 11 November 2012 - 11:24 AM

I don't like short term loan companies very much at all, but if they're a legal company then Bradford are perfectly entitled to take their money.

Every Wakefield fan I've ever met in person has been good-humoured, pleasant and well-informed. Bizarrely, a disproportionate numberof Wakefield fans you come across on the internet seem to be preachy, slightly backward and suffering from amazingly selective memories.

I can confirm 30+ less sales for Scotland vs Italy at Workington, after this afternoons test purchase for the Tonga match, £7.50 is extremely reasonable, however a £2.50 'delivery' fee for a walk in purchase is beyond taking the mickey, good luck with that, it's cheaper on the telly.


#104 Ant

Ant
  • Coach
  • 3,208 posts

Posted 11 November 2012 - 12:03 PM

Every Wakefield fan I've ever met in person has been good-humoured, pleasant and well-informed. Bizarrely, a disproportionate numberof Wakefield fans you come across on the internet seem to be preachy, slightly backward and suffering from amazingly selective memories.


So very true!

#105 Lounge Room Lizard

Lounge Room Lizard
  • Coach
  • 6,516 posts

Posted 11 November 2012 - 01:06 PM

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.

Just because you and your dad worked for them doesnt make them morally clean. Whether you like it or not and what they have done in the past and do now, they are nothing more than a company that prey on people and help often to get them loans they dont need and cause further problems to vulnarable people. Like a number of companies whether they class themselves as banks (RBS, Halifax, Barclays) who loan money or money lending companies they prey often on people who are in trouble and convince them to take on things they dont need. Morally all these types of institutions are wrong. Bradford are not the first and only club to have a sponsor/Investor who is morally bankrupt and personally I wouldnt trust them or have anything to do with them if I could .As Chris mentioned Probiz are in the same boat and again are morally bankrupt. Some clubs dont need these type of sponsors/Investors. Halifax didnt and gladly Probiz moved on. I dont feel Fev need him and I dont think he will stay long anyway going by his record. Probiz manipulate things for his own interests and for me why he has moved around so much. But Bradford sadly need right now any cash they can and cant blame them for taking this sponsorship. Hopefully once Bradford are settled they can eject such morally bankrupt sponsors like this

I was glad when the game got away from cigareetes and beer sponsorship as it wasnt the type of sponsorship for me sport or our game should be after. Rugby League promotes itself as having this family image and caring after one another. Yet some of the sponsors in the game dont have them values and never will. I dont see how such a sponsorship can go hand in hand with the view clubs and the game want to portrait. For me it was why I would have been uncomfortable if SL had been sponsored by a betting, cigareete alcohol or a money lending based company. If we are to properly push about being a family club or sport then for me we need to keep away from certain types. Yes we need money but we also have to me make sure that we are just trying to promote us being one thing then be involved with sponsors who often cause or help cause many problems with how they do things. But each person has a different viewpoint on things. But the viewpoint from a number on here including some Bradford fans is that its not a great sponsor to have but probably one Bradford need to have a chance to be a stable club in the future. Sadly our game and clubs are not in a position to be picky despite our personal feelings

#106 l'angelo mysterioso

l'angelo mysterioso
  • Coach
  • 42,221 posts

Posted 11 November 2012 - 01:37 PM

As I said I don't know enough about Probiz to have a solid opinion, however from the link you provided I have to say that my initial thoughts are that I don't like what they do. The main difference seems to be that loan sharks directly target the vulnerable and exploit them, there's no complicated system in place, it's an industry as old as prostitution. Tax avoidance might have some negative impact down the line which is why I don't like it, but while no one seems to want to help the victims of loan sharks the Gov't will no doubt use HMRC to close any loopholes that exist and allow Probiz et al to do what they do.

What do you think?


I'm sure a little research on your part in what seems to be a major area of concern to you will firm up that opinion.

I have my misgivings about these companies. They are symptom of the straightened times too many people live in, but they are not loan sharks really. Personally I think credit unions do a far better job in helping out working people with shoort/medium term financial issues.

I disagree with you strongly about no one wanting to help the victims of loan sharks.

http://www.oft.gov.u...12/loan-sharks

/https://www.moneyadviceservice.org.uk/en/articles/how-to-spot-a-loan-shark/?&gclid=CIXOup-Fx7MCFaTMtAodbHoAHAhttps://www.moneyadviceservice.org.uk/en/articles/how-to-spot-a-loan-shark/?&gclid=CIXOup-Fx7MCFaTMtAodbHoAHA





However: yourt view on clubs being spopnsored by short term loan companies: Newcastle United AFC being but one alongside the Bulls, are clear.

What are your views on clubs being sponsored by companies who soecialise in tax evasion for the wealthy? Why do you think there is little or no protest about it, and the moral issues involved?

Edited by l'angelo mysterioso, 11 November 2012 - 01:44 PM.

WELCOME TO THE ROYSTON VASEY SUPER LEAGUE 2015
Keeping it local

#107 keighley

keighley
  • Coach
  • 5,823 posts

Posted 11 November 2012 - 04:07 PM

they specialise in tax avoidance for the wealthy


Tax avoidance is legal and the rich pay Probiz for this service as they can afford it. Tax evasion is another matter entirely.

I think the point being made is that the interest charged by the Provident is usuary and only the desperate avail themselves of it and they cannot afford the interest payments.

#108 keighley

keighley
  • Coach
  • 5,823 posts

Posted 11 November 2012 - 04:13 PM

Yes, but can you finalise your position which is one where the game must reject dodgy business practices on moral grounds and take a financial hit that could damage the game???

I am sure you will be kind enough to conclude as such.

If so let me refer you to the double glazing industry in which my own experience was a desire to double glaze several windows in my own house at the rear of the property.

I was quoted £8,000 for the work by the kind salesman, but on my doubts about the fairness of the quote he ended up knocking 50% off as long as I signed there and then.

I did not do so as I was annoyed at being taken for a mug and effectively being scammed for £4,000.

The salesman did not leave but browbeat us until I had to leave my own house to do some gardening, leaving my wife to deal with him as i had got to the point of wanting to break the law.

He eventually left, but I felt his company and his approach were greedy, immoral and predatory.

I do hope any club in the Rugby League wholeheartedly rejects support from industries as disgusting as this.


In regards to Provident, I thought that according to your previous postings, RL is a business and all is fair in business, so I would have thought that you would be all in favour of the Provident deal, especially when it is going to prop up a BIG club.

#109 Konkrete

Konkrete
  • Coach
  • 2,050 posts

Posted 11 November 2012 - 08:07 PM

...

Looking across the SL sponsorships we have a range from solicitors (nice people if you can afford them), to cash for gold porn brokers who exploit the same vunerable people as pay day loan people, so unless the RFL produce a moral code they can afford then the debate is pointless.

Wow! That past me by. Tell me Leeds are being sponsored by BigTits next season. Please let it be true.

Edited by Konkrete, 11 November 2012 - 08:09 PM.

Integrity is shown when no-one is looking.

#110 OMEGA

OMEGA
  • Coach
  • 1,375 posts

Posted 11 November 2012 - 08:59 PM

I'm sure a little research on your part in what seems to be a major area of concern to you will firm up that opinion.

I have my misgivings about these companies. They are symptom of the straightened times too many people live in, but they are not loan sharks really. Personally I think credit unions do a far better job in helping out working people with shoort/medium term financial issues.

I disagree with you strongly about no one wanting to help the victims of loan sharks.

http://www.oft.gov.u...12/loan-sharks

/https://www.moneyadviceservice.org.uk/en/articles/how-to-spot-a-loan-shark/?&gclid=CIXOup-Fx7MCFaTMtAodbHoAHAhttps://www.moneyadviceservice.org.uk/en/articles/how-to-spot-a-loan-shark/?&gclid=CIXOup-Fx7MCFaTMtAodbHoAHA





However: yourt view on clubs being spopnsored by short term loan companies: Newcastle United AFC being but one alongside the Bulls, are clear.

What are your views on clubs being sponsored by companies who soecialise in tax evasion for the wealthy? Why do you think there is little or no protest about it, and the moral issues involved?


Sorry, should have made it clearer, I meant no one in Gov't seems to want to help.

#111 OMEGA

OMEGA
  • Coach
  • 1,375 posts

Posted 11 November 2012 - 09:05 PM

Given beer sponsorship isn't illegal like tobacco, why aren't RL clubs sponsored by them any more?

Also, Omega, you don't know what your talking about in relation to Short Term Loan Companies either. Seriously you haven't got a clue.


Look I know there are worse loan sharks than Provident, I know there are downright gangsters involved with some organisations and beleive me I knw the type of tactics and activities they resort to. Maybe they're the very worst of the loan shark industry but just because they don't resort to the same tactics doesn't mean that Provident don't aren't loan sharks as well.

#112 OMEGA

OMEGA
  • Coach
  • 1,375 posts

Posted 11 November 2012 - 09:08 PM

How did I brush tax avoidance under the carpet?

I was asked for an opinion, more than once, so I gave one but not before explaining that Probiz aren't that well known to me.



#113 l'angelo mysterioso

l'angelo mysterioso
  • Coach
  • 42,221 posts

Posted 11 November 2012 - 09:10 PM

Tax avoidance is legal and the rich pay Probiz for this service as they can afford it. Tax evasion is another matter entirely.

I think the point being made is that the interest charged by the Provident is usuary and only the desperate avail themselves of it and they cannot afford the interest payments.


that's why I said tax avoidance and not tax evasion-don't patronise me

The business that Provident do is legal also.
WELCOME TO THE ROYSTON VASEY SUPER LEAGUE 2015
Keeping it local

#114 l'angelo mysterioso

l'angelo mysterioso
  • Coach
  • 42,221 posts

Posted 11 November 2012 - 09:12 PM

Sorry, should have made it clearer, I meant no one in Gov't seems to want to help.


the office of fair trading is a government organisation
this is a government sponsored campaign initiative

https://www.gov.uk/report-loan-shark

'loan sharking' is illegal. The government make laws, the government made the law making loan sharking illegal.

Edited by l'angelo mysterioso, 11 November 2012 - 09:19 PM.

WELCOME TO THE ROYSTON VASEY SUPER LEAGUE 2015
Keeping it local

#115 l'angelo mysterioso

l'angelo mysterioso
  • Coach
  • 42,221 posts

Posted 11 November 2012 - 09:14 PM

How did I brush tax avoidance under the carpet?

I was asked for an opinion, more than once, so I gave one but not before explaining that Probiz aren't that well known to me.


you are commendable in your zeal in finding information about Provident, a little similar zeal about probiz now that you have been npointed in the right direction should be fruitful.
WELCOME TO THE ROYSTON VASEY SUPER LEAGUE 2015
Keeping it local

#116 Rob

Rob
  • Coach
  • 516 posts

Posted 12 November 2012 - 12:33 AM

Clearly Provident are not loan sharks. Loan sharks are illegal.

Provident lend money to a high risk sector of the market, and the higher costs associated with collecting the repayments are reflected in the terms.

Objecting to Provident doing this on moral grounds is a bit rich if you are not objecting to other forms of lending such as mortgages etc. It's no different in principle, its just an arbitrary argument over what level of charges are 'acceptable' and what level of charges are 'immoral'.

If I don't pay my mortgage, I can lose my house. Despite my ridiculously low interest rate of 0.29%, the consequences of me not paying my mortgage are extremely severe and surely the consequences of me not paying my mortgage are as bad, if not worse, than not paying Provident's door step collectors their weekly payments.

In short, I do not see a correlation between the APR of a loan and 'morality'. Not repaying loans, whether high or low APR can be seriously bad for your future.

As a Bradford fan, I'm delighted we've got the sponsorship, and relieved. I hope being a Bradford fan is not clouding my moral judgement...but I'd also happily accept Probiz as a sponsor. I've no issue with minimising the tax payable, either personally or for a company to do so. If there are tax loopholes, then the loopholes need shutting. If they are not shut you cannot expect society to voluntarily pay tax that is not legally due to be paid. That's not how society works.

And if you don't like the laws of the land...its tough, we live in a democracy and you can use your vote accordingly.

#117 giwildgo

giwildgo
  • Coach
  • 4,057 posts

Posted 12 November 2012 - 07:38 AM

what are your thoughts on clubs being sponsored by Probiz? For some reason the guardians of thre sports's morals don't seem to have much to say about it.

In fairness, there was a long debate about Probiz a couple of years ago, with many opposing views regarding the morality of tax avoidance.

In terms of the Bradford sponsorship, it's a case of beggars can't be choosers. I find the whole payday / short term loan industry rather murky from a moral perspective, but its a legal service that is regulated accordingly.

Edited by giwildgo, 12 November 2012 - 07:51 AM.


#118 gingerjon

gingerjon
  • Coach
  • 29,380 posts

Posted 12 November 2012 - 07:53 AM

Just tried to find the discussions about probiz and it appears they were deleted.
Cheer up, RL is actually rather good
- Severus, July 2012

#119 Amber Avenger

Amber Avenger
  • Coach
  • 5,779 posts

Posted 12 November 2012 - 09:13 AM

I think when you start reposting random ranters on twitter to support your argument, it's time to step away from the keyboard.
SQL Honours
Play off mini league winner - 2002. Bronze Medalist - 2003. Big Split Group Winner - 2006. Minor Stupidship - 2005, 2006. Cup Silver Medalist - 2008, 2009
CHAMPION - 2005, 2009, 2010

#120 OMEGA

OMEGA
  • Coach
  • 1,375 posts

Posted 12 November 2012 - 09:16 AM

I think when you start reposting random ranters on twitter to support your argument, it's time to step away from the keyboard.


You can think what you want fella!

I'll support and have supported my stance on this in a variety of ways!




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users