205 replies to this topic

[OMEGA]

surely Omega won't reply to anything, since he will have realised that lap tops are made by poorly paid workers in far eastern sweatshops and will have binned his on principle.

He seems very selective in his high moral stance, as dosome others who use 'morality' to validate their views.

At no point in my stance have I resorted to being personally critical of anyone so I don't understand your need to start down that track with me.

[The Parksider]

I'd be just as vociferous and have the same objections

A very laudable stance.

But would you accept or reject the sponsorship if you had a say?

[OMEGA]

Could you kindly answer mine?

Would you advocate Wakefield turn down something like this? given Mr. Glover (Like Mr. Khan) does not have such riches that he could afford to do so without damaging Bulls prospects??

I have

[OMEGA]

A very laudable stance.

But would you accept or reject the sponsorship if you had a say?

I'd reject it!

And before anyone says that's naive, I've worked as a commercial manager in sport for over 15 years and done so in Rugby League at all levels and in sports that dwarf Rugby League.

[l'angelo mysterioso]

At no point in my stance have I resorted to being personally critical of anyone so I don't understand your need to start down that track with me.

I'm not

I'm just tapping into your moral tone. What personal criticism is there in my post? Clearly you are selective in your ethics since you have chosen to reply. Another example of this is your reaction when being asked to comment on clubs being sponsored by compoanies that specialise in tax avoidance.

[The Parksider]

I have

Can you just be clear that by "the same objections" you mean that you would like this sponsorship to be rejected at Bradford and would like it to be rejected if it was also offered to Wakefield???

[The Parksider]

I'd reject it!

Then personally I'm happy to accept that and have no argument with it if you feel the degree of immorality is beyond your personal views........

[l'angelo mysterioso]

I'd reject it!

And before anyone says that's naive, I've worked as a commercial manager in sport for over 15 years and done so in Rugby League at all levels and in sports that dwarf Rugby League.

would you have rejected sponsorship from Probiz?

Anyway it wouldn't have been your call surely. You were a club employee. decisions about income sources, their ammounts and nature would have been for the board of directors to take. I can see why you 'worked' as a commercial manager and not 'work' as one.

Edited by l'angelo mysterioso, 12 November 2012 - 12:54 PM.

[OMEGA]

thden why the fixation with Provident?

No fixation with Provident but rather with the industry in which they operate and are the market leader.

[l'angelo mysterioso]

No fixation with Provident but rather with the industry in which they operate and are the market leader.

but your posts relate entirely to Provident, but no matter.

What are your views on the insdustry that Probiz are a leading player in?

[brooza]

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

They've got the naming rights for Fev's ground next year. They're calling it the Big Fellas Stadium!

[brooza]

Just tried to find the discussions about probiz and it appears they were deleted.

No, the search functionality just doesn't work (try searching for a word in the topic name of something on the front page, it still won't find anything)

[gingerjon]

No, the search functionality just doesn't work (try searching for a word in the topic name of something on the front page, it still won't find anything)

I did it via google. There's a link to John Drake saying he's deleted the probiz discussion.

Are you calling John Drake a liar?

[brooza]

I did it via google. There's a link to John Drake saying he's deleted the probiz discussion.

Are you calling John Drake a liar?

Fair enough.

Only when he says the search box is fixed!

Edited by brooza, 12 November 2012 - 01:00 PM.

[petero]

no its not, no more than having a gambling sponsor, a drinks sponsor, a political sponsor like a trade union, a fizzy drink sponsor, a hamburger sponsor, a chemical company sponsor, a car company sponsor (cars kill thousands of people a year) etc etc.....

Thats a very accurate summation. Morals are mythical as we all can prove when we can make a fast quid or so, thay are also something that exist in the minds of those that can afford them also, so good luck to anyone that can.

[John Drake]

Fair enough.

Only when he says the search box is fixed!

Search is working fine, I just tested it. If you're using it from within an open topic, it'll only search within that topic unless you choose a different search option (ie, forum) at the side of your search words.

[brooza]

Search is working fine, I just tested it. If you're using it from within an open topic, it'll only search within that topic unless you choose a different search option (ie, forum) at the side of your search words.

LIAR!

OK, it does actually seem to be working. Never usually does though...

[The Parksider]

Morals are mythical as we all can prove when we can make a fast quid or so, thay are also something that exist in the minds of those that can afford them also, so good luck to anyone that can.

Very good John. Another reason to stick to the RL debate and Omega has no double standard between his club and Bradford.

[OMEGA]

I'm not

I'm just tapping into your moral tone. What personal criticism is there in my post? Clearly you are selective in your ethics since you have chosen to reply. Another example of this is your reaction when being asked to comment on clubs being sponsored by compoanies that specialise in tax avoidance.

You're not tapping into anything, as I said if you have a "fixation" with Probiz and Tax avoidance then good for you.

If it helps you, I see the Loan Shark industry as directly attacking and exploiting vulnerable people. They target them by knocking on the doors of their homes with enticements knowing full well that the people they're after are desperate for a break, desperate for a new winter coat for their kids, desperate to put more than a couple of days food in the pantry or desperate not to have to choose between keeping the gas or the electricity on. It's a honey trap and they lay it well!

Despite the link you posted there seems to be absolutely no will from the Government to regulate this industry, in fact exactly the opposite.
See:
Jonathan Luffs move from senior Conservative party lobbyist to Wonga Director
Error Damelin & Jonty Hurwitz donations to the Conservative party
Boris Johnsons much criticised transport deal with Wonga
Adrian Beecrofts move into Cabinet affairs
Etc. etc

HMRC are there to regulate such companies as Probiz and no doubt there IS a will to find and close down loopholes in their industry.
While I've no doubt that tax avoidance eventually comes round to bite us all on the bum in one form or another it's generally practiced by people, rightly or wrongly, seeking to protect their own assets rather than directly targeting and exploiting vulnerable people on a face to face basis. You might argue that it's only a subtle difference and wrong is wrong but I see it as a huge difference and I'll pick my own fights if you don't mind.

[Johnoco]

So basically a company avoiding paying tax, and lots of it at that, that could go towards hospitals or schools is not as bad as someone lending money to people of their own free will, however dubious?

So, you are the bulls commercial manager, you've just rejected the deal, no one else is coming forward, what do you for now?