Bingo!

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. The vast majority of Provident customers remain in debt to them forever due to the cycle of topping up that the company pushes at them constantly.

Having said that, Rugby League simply can't financially 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.

so as long as they don't bother you its fine, they will wont all the dater of the fans then they will be on your door step offering loans

That made no sense whatsoever. How many Cas games have you attended in the last few seasons?

That's not just the Provident though. I've received offers of new loans over old by high street banks just as you get near the end of an existing loan.

Last year, all though a season ticket holder i only saw about 3 games, most of the year i spent in the LGI with meningitis, hope to be able to go more next year, but i still will get a ticket

Err Provident don't go walking the streets knocking on doors asking if you want a loan. YOU have to approach THEM. But given your arguments are based off the whole "I saw it on the telly therefore it must be 100% true" I don't think we need put too much stock in what you say.

Yeah? Well going by that I'd say that you made your payments regularly and on time. Therefore the bank considered you a good risk for further lending. Which is what all banks do. It'd be stupid of any bank to lend to someone who'll never pay them back.

So your pathetic boycott of Bradford next season it is a classic case of double standards then, just as I thought.

As you were...

I'm going to stick my neck out and say that the Information Commissioner would have something to say about Bradford Bulls handing over the data of 9,000 season ticket holders to a financial services company without their permission.

The beautiful irony there is that is exactly what the sponsor of his own club wanted to do just over 12 months ago...

Lovely stuff this double standards lark.

Quote ="pocket 4's"An insolvency professional body released an article on "payday" loans and their popularity which reminded me of this thread. Source R3 - Association of Business Recovery Professionals - www.r3.org.uk/index.cfm?page=111 ... fpage=1008 [i5 million British adults considering taking out a payday loan in the next six months – One in four (26%) of 18-24 year olds likely to seek a payday loan – 13% of GB adults have prioritised paying back these loans over essentials such as food Since this time a year ago, there has been approximately a 50% increase on the number of GB adults who say they are likely to seek a payday loan in the next six months, up from 3.5 million individuals to 5 million today. The payday loan can no longer be regarded as a niche form of credit.[/i Therefore, like it or not, Provident provide an essential product and get well remunerated for it. If they didn't do it then someone else would and it is a competitive (and regulated) market at the end of the day. There are plenty of other companies out there that i don't particularly like or intend to have anything to do with personally but i think it is a bit hypocritical to criticise the Bulls for their sponsorship deal.'" Bank charges have a lot to answer for on that front. Whilst I've no doubt that the rise in PDL firms is down to wider economic issues, a fact that is often missed is that (despite the horrendous APR) a PDL is often cheaper than the myriad of bank charges that are levied should you inadvertently stray over your overdraft limit. www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16002022

Quote ="pocket 4's"An insolvency professional body released an article on "payday" loans and their popularity which reminded me of this thread. Source R3 - Association of Business Recovery Professionals - www.r3.org.uk/index.cfm?page=111 ... fpage=1008 [i5 million British adults considering taking out a payday loan in the next six months – One in four (26%) of 18-24 year olds likely to seek a payday loan – 13% of GB adults have prioritised paying back these loans over essentials such as food Since this time a year ago, there has been approximately a 50% increase on the number of GB adults who say they are likely to seek a payday loan in the next six months, up from 3.5 million individuals to 5 million today. The payday loan can no longer be regarded as a niche form of credit.[/i Therefore, like it or not, Provident provide an essential product and get well remunerated for it. If they didn't do it then someone else would and it is a competitive (and regulated) market at the end of the day. There are plenty of other companies out there that i don't particularly like or intend to have anything to do with personally but i think it is a bit hypocritical to criticise the Bulls for their sponsorship deal.'" Bank charges have a lot to answer for on that front. Whilst I've no doubt that the rise in PDL firms is down to wider economic issues, a fact that is often missed is that (despite the horrendous APR) a PDL is often cheaper than the myriad of bank charges that are levied should you inadvertently stray over your overdraft limit. www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-16002022

yes the sponsor did, and Cas side no thats when the money stopped

Aye, Cas have nothing to do with how Probiz are run, just like Bradford have nothing to do with how Provident are run.

Do you accept that you and your family & friends pathetic boycott of the Bradford game next season is a classic case of double standards then?

i have posted my reasons, i hated cas`s sponsor last year, and we refused to buy the shirts, instead we spent the money on other things at Cas, so RL got my money, for me the sponsor we had was bad, and some thought he was the new messier, i hope to get to the Jungle next year, it might be petty but i have seen first hand what this company do, so no i will not go, i will not stop any body from my family going if they decide to go, up-to know they think the same as me

Thats a yes then.

not really a yes but, as close as you will get, i thought as much about our sponsor, as i do theres

As is your right, but to childishly boycott one and not the other is showing clear double standards. Do you not see the point I'm trying to make here?

Out of interest, frank5613, could you post a full list of all the companies whose services or products you boycott as you have issues with their ethics?

Don't go to too much trouble, the top fifty will do. If you can name them in descending order of objection strength that would be useful.

I know exactly the point, but when you love RL you just cannot stop, i am over the moon that he has gone, but as i said before i have seen what there sponsors as capable of, most Cas fans had never eared of Cas`s sponsor until all the crap started, now Fev, have him and they are welcome

Fair enough, I will leave it there.

You really don't need to boycott Bradford though, honestly.

No the only problem i have is as you know, Money lending at extortionate rate, and thats all the problem i have, would you borrow money form them, if so go get a lone

I've heard that the Bulls will be announcing Al Queada as their shirt sponsor.

What an evil club.

Don't be ridiculous.

We've already got the shirt sponsor.

Al Qaeda are sponsoring the match day transport.

or the match day bomb, sorry ment ball