Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

MrPosh

Warning: Potential Bradford Good News Story

223 posts in this topic

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

how on earth have you derived that conclusion from what I wrote?

Do his/her job better!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do his/her job better!

"Hi Boss, I've got a £1.2 Million sponsorship deal for us - you know the club that almost went extinct 6 months ago"

"Do your job better FFS"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Damned predictive text :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Hi Boss, I've got a £1.2 Million sponsorship deal for us - you know the club that almost went extinct 6 months ago"

"Do your job better FFS"

yep, youve obviously got a real grasp of how these things happen.

Done with it now, Ive stated my case more than once and theres nothing more to say.

Good luck Bradford

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

how on earth have you derived that conclusion from what I wrote?

Do his/her job better!

Do their job better how? Big money people are not interested in RL. What do you propose? Kidnap a chief exec until they give us a bit of the action?

We aren't soccer or Union or F1, we have to take what we can and leave the morals of it for another time. Sad but true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yep, youve obviously got a real grasp of how these things happen.

Done with it now, Ive stated my case more than once and theres nothing more to say.

Good luck Bradford

Well you sure haven't . Club policy on financial matters us decided and overseen by the board of directors. What sponsorship to accept or turn down would have been up to them not you

Unless you are playing dumb, you don't have even a tenuous grasp of the point I'm making, despite having it spelled out for you repeatedly.

I'll try again. It's to do with picking and chasing what is 'moral' and 'ethical' according to what suits. Personally I don't give a flying fart about probiz. Neither they nor provident are doing anything illegal-although I'm not keen on what either of them do. The point is that there are people like you, and supporters of clubs sponsored by the likes of probiz who play the morality card when it suits, but don't speak up when it doesn't. If you really were in a morality trip then you would at least have made an attempt to address the issue of sponsorship by probiz.

If you were really a club commercial manager you wouldn't have had the power or responsibility to decide who or who does not support your club financially.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yep, youve obviously got a real grasp of how these things happen.

I detect a hint of sarcasm in your post (which is more than you managed to detect in mine... :happy: )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if a legal hard core pornography company offered big bucks would people object? just wondering if people have any line at all

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if a legal hard core pornography company offered big bucks would people object? just wondering if people have any line at all

Depends what the kit looks like... ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if a legal hard core pornography company offered big bucks would people object? just wondering if people have any line at all

This happened with Salford.

Isn't hard core pornography illegal for people under a certain age?

Someone could take a short term loan out to help their family. They couldn't sign up to a porn channel and claim to be doing the same.

In the end it's a judgement call

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...this legalised extortion industry...

I realise this is your strongly held opinon but is not supported by the facts, by thecompanirs customers etc. There are many more sponsors who do things that actually endanger human life but we don't see any vituperative posts from you on that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I realise this is your strongly held opinon but is not supported by the facts, by thecompanirs customers etc. There are many more sponsors who do things that actually endanger human life but we don't see any vituperative posts from you on that.

which sponsors are those out of interest?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This happened with Salford.

Isn't hard core pornography illegal for people under a certain age?

Someone could take a short term loan out to help their family. They couldn't sign up to a porn channel and claim to be doing the same.

In the end it's a judgement call

so is gambling but that doesn't prevent legal advertising through sports teams so i cant see why for example whatever.com couldn't advertise on leeds shirt. if they could and it was declared legal would people reject that sponsorship for moral reasons?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so is gambling but that doesn't prevent legal advertising through sports teams so i cant see why for example whatever.com couldn't advertise on leeds shirt. if they could and it was declared legal would people reject that sponsorship for moral reasons?

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so is gambling but that doesn't prevent legal advertising through sports teams so i cant see why for example whatever.com couldn't advertise on leeds shirt. if they could and it was declared legal would people reject that sponsorship for moral reasons?

It isn't legal for hardcore porn to advertise simply anywhere though, so it's not comparing like with like. Presumably if it did become legal, the entire moral standpoint of the nation would likely be vastly different. The gambling comparison is much more apt IMO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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) ( B) 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) ( B) of the Company's Act 1985.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



League Express - Mon 24th July 2017

Rugby League World - August 2017