No actually, it's called personal choice - what part of this concept don't you understand?

I never said it wasn't personal choice. His personal choice however is showing clear double standards. He even admitted it himself.

In my posts i have never said people should not go to the Bulls, my personal grievance is with this type of business,[ the sponsors its not for me to tel people not to go, all i post is my argument, the same as others do,i have reasons why i do not like these type of businesses, some people don't mind how they operate, but some do, if every body thought the same we would not need forums to argue your case.

As far as I'm concerned, if they are not doing anything illegal, their money is good.

Only read the first 10 pages, but having worked at Provident myself I want to add something here.

Yes the interest rates are large – but the profit to the company are not. On average for every person who pays back the loan 3 do not, due to the nature of the people taking out the loan there is no point taking court action against them as even if you win they have nothing to give. So in essence to lend out £100 to someone Provident have to “spend” £400 (these figures are based on 10 year old data BTW)

At 435% (which was the top rate when I worked there, not sure what it is now) thats only 35% profit (based on having to make 3 loans to get that back due to non payment.

Now you could make the argument that it’s unfair for those who pay to have to make up the margin for those who don’t, thats the deal with these companies and if more people actually paid up they could probably lower their rates.

Then lots of people need sacking then.

It is this kind of irresponsible lending that has contributed to the financial mess. This includes high street lenders.

True, but unlike the high street lenders Provident factor the cost of defaults into their pricing stratagy - they don't depend on the tax payer bailing them out.

The fact is that with a loan this small it's hard to say who will pay back and who will not – how do you work out who can afford the £10 a month and who cannot? When the amount is so low that the difference can be weather you shop at ASDA or Tesco then it’s hard to work out who will pay back and who won’t.

I’m also sad to say that (and again this is ten year old data and today with the credit trouble we have now it might not be as bad) I dealt with a lot of people who could afford the repayments but had the opinion of “I’ve messed up my credit file anyway, I might as well take the £500 and kill my credit report off”, how would you pick up those people on an application form/interview when it is unlikely that they will not say so outright? Your tests show that they could afford it so what other criteria do you use?

I should point out I worked at the head office - wasn't a door to door saleman.

Why would a company with what seems to be a successful business model want to sack loads of people?

How has Provident's lending contributed to the financial mess? I don't recall them being bailed out by the taxpayer, did I miss something?

I have read a lot of your posts - there is a lot you are missing!

You are one-eyed, if not blind, when it comes to the glorious Bulls, rude and dismissive of any contrary view to your own.

Your last post is a perfect example of your deliberately obtuse attitude. Clearly, the previous poster stated that provident have to surcharge good customers to bail out bad ones.

Be more selective in giving loans and thus giving better deals to reliable customers, would grow the business and be a much more profitable and ethical business model...but you knew that and glibly chose to ignore it.

He's an aardvark - what do you expect? Swinging his snout from side to side, sucking up ants and termites like a vacuum cleaner. Obviously has an inferiority complex - naming himself as such to get to the beginning of a dictionary - pathetic.

its the kind of lending that has become more popular because of the recent financial problems.
They are lending to a sub-prime market and price their recoveries based on the (high) risk of default

I'm sure there is, but have hardly claimed to be omniscient. There would be more point to coming up with this sort of stuff if you went on to tell us some of this "lot" that I'm missing. Don't be shy, share.


You haven't read enough of my posts, clearly. That is nonsense.


I can see how sometimes I can come across that way. I'm failry blunt, but only deliberately rude when the occasion demands.


Happy to engage in healthy debate and perfectly open to persuasion. The fact I'm usually right does colour my general attitude, obviously.




In what way? I don't know what you mean.


Well, that is one way of looking at their business model, I suppose, but a rather silly one. The point is that rates are set on given criteria, and once you have the rate, that is the rate. If they lend me money I won't ever have to then pay a surcharge "to bail out bad customers" and if you thought about it for a second you'd agree. I will only ever have to pay the rate at which I agreed to pay when they lent me the money.

The other blatantly obvious point you miss is that they obviously don't know in advance which customers will be "good" and which "bad".


I didn't know it at all. I would certainly not presume to challenge Provident's business model, and frankly some random guy on the internet who confidently asserts he knows for sure how Provident could be much more profitable is the type of bat loony claim I do sometimes disparage.

Do you actually believe what you write? On what possible basis? If you really do have such a more profitable and ethical business model, how come you never put Provident out of business?

Having said all that, all i did was pose two "QUESTIONS". You know, the "question" is a popular device to ask a person something, and elicit a response. that is what I did. I simply asked:

=#00BF00[i1. Why would a company with what seems to be a successful business model want to sack loads of people?

2. How has Provident's lending contributed to the financial mess? I don't recall them being bailed out by the taxpayer, did I miss something?[/i

Neither that poster nor you have so far attempted any answer. They seem like reasonable and straightforward questions to me.

As Aardvark says it's easy to say only lend to the good ones, but how do you find them when they all tell you the same thing.

to say that it's bad practice to have "bad" loans paid for by charging "good" loans is silly, even the high street banks do this, though of cause they have fewer "bad" loans, hence the ability to charge better rates.

It's simple maths, I have £500 and want to make £50 profit - I can either lend £100 to 5 people who I am 99% sure will pay me back and charge each £10 or I can lend £100 to 5 people, expect 3 not to pay me back and charge £175 per person. How can you say one model is worse than the other, both make the same profit and everyone knows the fees upfront. Ethically Provident might be bad (though I'd argue against it) but profitability it is pretty much the same.

Your views seem to be fixed, and it dos not mater what company you club was involved with, so long as it dos not effect you, you have seen the documentary, but see nothing wrong with massive rates of interest, in you position now, would you use the company,

If you think I am replying to all that on an iPad, you really are crackers!

I am not anti provident, anti bulls or anti capitalism, simply believe that they are not the most ethical of businesses. By their nature, the more vulnerable are their targeted customers.

I have used them myself, in worse personal times! It doesn't stop me wishing there had been a better solution.

I don't have a great understanding of this notion, but under sharia law, isn't such predatory lending illegal? It would perhaps be a strange juxtaposition with the Asian ownership of the club.

I've looked. It is.

Why are you bringing sharia law into the debate?

Maybe if the chief EXEC DID NOT PAY HIMSELF AN ANNUAL SALARY OF £3.5 MILLION POUNDS THEY COULD AFFORD LOWER RATES OF INTEREST TO THE BORROWERS

Sorry Durham Giant, this is not how the world spins.
The chief exec will pay himself what the board believe to be a competetive salary, usually with some kind of hefty bonus for hitting sales/profit targets.
£3.5 million seems hefty but, there are plenty of substantial salaries for the top brass of large organisations.
As the man on the street, it always seems bizarre that company bosses can be paid more than the person who is responsible for running the country, regardless of their political leaning but, that's capitalism for you and if they halved his salary tomorrow, it would have zero effect on the interest rates charged.
Bear in mind, we are "happy" for sportsmen and entertainers to be paid well in excess of this guys salary.

Probably the same reason why they bring hitler into debates!

Since Thatcher conned us all into believing home ownership was a god given right and we all started buying on tic, the way you generally got something you wanted, was by ing saving up for it!

To blame a company that takes advantage of a society that EXPECTS things, rather than makes do, is chirlish at best. The problem isn't the company...not its CEO on 3.5 million a year......the problem is those people who have forgotten how to or simply can't be d with "making do with what they have"

Well done Bradford Bulls....from being in the ter last January, you are making steps in the right direction..

i don't think hitler would have allowed these types of businesses to exist

Oohhh, I'm sorry. It is inconvenient to have it pointed out that the business model of your newly lauded sponsor, is in direct conflict with the faith beliefs of your new owners?

Money talks I guess. Even when it's "earned" at th expense of the most vulnerable in society, and even when the faith beliefs of the organisation forbid usury.

Explain then why at Manchester City you can still have a bet, a pint and still buy a sausage roll! When Leeds United asked wether Sharia law would effect them in any way with the take over by GFH Capitol, they assured it wouldn't by Sharia law solicitors!.



Try looking into sharia law before spouting "facts" you know little about!

Not wanting to sound like I'm in favour of this sponsorship deal but, sharia law is not "fully" recognised in a uk court of law and if enforced any decission "could" be against civil human rights, and any decission given under sharia law could be reviewed/overturned by any UK court



I'm not a lover of these kind of lenders but if my club were offered this kind of financial support over 3 years I would hope they would rip their hands off, I just wouldn't buy the latest shirt so that I wasn't directly putting money in their pockets or helping to promote them, hopefully that isnt too hypocritical for all the pedants on here