Funding a deal through Islamic finance is not the same as imposing sharia law...

I hardly think that the directors pay would affect rate. If the directors pay was reduced you could reduce the rates charged or increase shareholder dividends with the money saved, which would you go for, bearing in mind that you are legally required to maximise profits for the shareholders?

Provident are a Publicly traded company, they are legally obliged to maximise profit and price their rates to do so, if their costs went down they may lower rates, but only if doing so would increase revenue (i.e. the loss in revenue from each loan is made up for in more loans being issued) since we have already noted that they are a lender of last resort, and you, me, 99% of the population would not use them then the chances of lowering the rates for 435% to 335% (which really if you lowered his wage for 3.5M to 1M is probably all you could afford) resulting in a huge uptake in loans are slim.

As a result they are legally obliged to keep rates high, even if the chief exec lowers his wage – or are you implying that Provident should break the law?

Now you can argue that the law is maybe wrong and companies shouldn’t be legally obliged to maximise profit – but Provident can’t exactly decide which laws they follow and which they don’t.

You could of cause do what others here seem to suggest – change the business model to only lend to people who you are sure will pay back (and if they don’t pay back has assests that can be seized in the courts) and charge rates of 10-20%, (i.e. be a high street bank) – this of cause works but, by the posters here own logic the people who are “forced” to use Provident now to pay bills/food would not be lent money this way. They will then freeze/starve to death as nobody will then them money, or as one guy suggested be forced to work in a porn or a swet shop. Maybe you think that’s for the best....

For all there are lots of people complaining against Providents rates I have yet to see someone suggest another way that they can still make a profit and yet still lend to people who are unlikely to pay back, if they can think of a way to do this then why don’t they I’m sure everyone who is desperate for money would use the service.

If anyone's going to make millions p.a. - and I'd prefer it if nobody did as it's excessive imo - I'd rather it was people who enhanced the lives of others. This includes sportsmen and other entertainers.

This is getting pretty damn amusing. Watching as increasingly mad straw men are thrown up, in laughable attempts to shore up a risible argument, but I'm glad I'd put my coffee down before I read that claptrap, or my screen and keyboard would be covered.

I must admit that I never knew OK Bulls Ltd was a faith organisation, or that a limited company could even have "faith beliefs". What are they? Where did you find them? I have read the memorandum and articles of association, and there is not a word remotely religious. So far as I can see, it appears to be a sports club of some sort.

Well done to you, and to the clown unfeasibly throwing sharia law into the ring, (





) for at least for providing some rich Friday comedy material! You crazy guys, you!



The word "usury" was introduced. In fact, there are many dozens of financial institutions that you could go to if you needed a loan, and so far as I can see, Provident would be amongst the cheapest and the least "hidden cost". If you do any searching, for example at [urlhttp://www.lenderscompared.org.uk[/url Provident seem to come out near the cheapest loans available and without the "catches" of slightly cheaper loans. "Usury" would be more like the sort of thing the US based megalenders get up to, Provident is an English company and has been in business for well over a century so I suggest must be doing something right.

It is often explained though that using APR to judge the fairness of a small loan is unfair, and indeed it is. The example I used was that I wanted a loan of £200 repayable in 14 weekly instalments. The total cost to me would be £280. Repayments are collected weekly on my doorstep. Whatever you want to claim the effective APR may be, the simple fact is that he lender is only making a fiver or so per week gross on the deal, and that has to cover the cost of a personal collection, and a rateable contribution to the company's business overheads, which includes a high proportion of written off loans. I simply can't see this sort of arrangement as "unethical" or intrinsically "bad". If the borrower instead took out the money from a cashpoint on an unauthorised overdraft, [ithen[/i you'd see some usury, from your respectable high street bank.

Going back to chief execs pay for a moment.

I don't have all the details to hand so I'm going to make some assumptions based on information in this thread, information I know from other companies and some pure guess work.

For arguments sake lets say the Chief Exec agree to work for free (something unlikely as they could make a million somewhere else, but I'm making a "worse case" point here), you make a saving of £3.5M for the year.

Now lets presume that Provident, throughout the year, issue on average 100,000 loans - this seems low to me for a national comapny, but again this is "wrost case". (this number has been plucked from thin air, if anyone knows how many the do issue please let me know)

3.5M over 100,000 loans is £35 per loan

Currently - to borrow £500 you repay £721 over 6 months, with the saving we have you now repay £686. (I'm sure these numbers arn't accurate, but they are in the right ballpark) do you think that the fee now is good? so instead of paying £221 over 6 months you pay £186

If you do think the new fee is resonable then the chief execs pay is an issue, if you don't then really what they are being paid makes such a small diference in what they charge that it isn't an issue.

I'm not saying that directors arn't paid too much, I firmly believe that they are, but lets not delude ourselves that if they lower their wages everything will drastically reduce in price.

how on earth is buying a shirt putting money into Providents pockets? they sponsor the shirt to get their name on it. They dont get any revenue from shirt sales. By buying a shirt I'm supporting my club who get the revenue from the shirt sale. by not buying a shirt I'm not hurting Provident, Im hurting the revenue of the club I support. If it was possible to buy a shirt without the sponsors badges (even if it was at a higher cost) then people might take it up if they were really upset by the sponsors, but as there isn't that isnt an option.

This thread is venturing into JVT territory...

You couldn't debate a point if your life depended upon it.

You snipe, sneer, mock and most impressively, use emoticons, to simply be dismissive, with a foot stomping "I'm rightttttt" attitude, that isn't prepared to consider an opposing argument.

Are provident evil? No. Should Bulls take their money? He'll yes. Are they the most desirable of sponsors? Well they aren't the worst. Are the interesting points to debate about the efficacy of their business and the subtle contradiction in the promotion of said company, via an organisation owned by a practicing Muslim? Not in aardvark world.

Don't reply. Just go bully someone else into submission.

Phew! Thank heavens for that. Some around here may take some convincing, but still.


Not so. I debate using the weapons at hand. People who can't back up their arguments often go ad hominem, like you, as a prelude to walking away. I suppose it's easier than considering a different view, for some.




All good.


Efficacy of the business? I didn't know we were. It makes good profits and has been around over a century so not much to discuss, I wouldn't have thought? Where did I say I won't debate the efficacy of their business?



A scurrilous personal attack on Omar Khan, alleging that he is offending against his faith seems to me to be both scraping the barrel and bang out of order.


Reply, don't reply, run away, that's your choice. You don't get to decide what I do.

Nah. They're weakening. I can smell blood. All be over before Christmas.

If you are trying to be a knob, you are doing an amazing job.

Thing is, you aren't trying are you? It's all just you being your normal self.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion. Even you, even me. Shame that in your world, only yours is allowed to be heard.

Thanks, but you've got to stop this sycophantic stuff, it's really not necessary



You want to call the police, then, because somebody impersonating you as "dboy" has been posting a string of opinions on here for ages. 1,491 of 'em, at the last count.

Mind you I've always found it odd that the site has tens of thousands of members, yet I'm the only one who's ever posted an opinion.

And another thing, how have you got the nerve to hypocritically claim others snipe, sneer, mock ... are dismissive, with a foot stomping "I'm rightttttt" attitude, that isn't prepared to consider an opposing argument? You want to read your own stuff. But as I'm the helpful type, I've done a bit of it for you, and all from just this one thread:












Now jog on, hypocrite.

Oooh, selective.

Jog on yourself, bully boy.

Lovely stuff.

Well yes. He selected a number of quotes that YOU made that back up what he was saying.

Your arguments tend to be based not on any quotable source but rather a playground mentality of "Every point I've made has been rebuffed so now I'm going to use childish insults to prove my argument is right"

My work here is done.

PMSL.

I reckon that perfectly sums up your "debating style".

... I hear the loud jangle of keys . .

. . . . . . what could it be . . . .

Could it be the sound of you getting locked out for a period for abusing AUP 2.1?

As a moderator, I can tell you now that it isn't that. In fact if anyone was to get banned for abusing AUP 2.1 it would be you.

When have I used threatening imagery, or used personal insults?

It's ok for him to mock my speech impediment??????

Are you for real?

How do you detect a speech impediment over an internet message board? Do you stammer in your posts?

I think you are now in danger of abusing AUP 2.2 as well as 2.1

du....du...du...du.........don't yo yo yo yo you ss ss ssss ss start

For what its worth:

I think Chris Joynt slipped and the ref was right to wave play on...