Difficult topic which you can view from many angles but from my viewpoint:
a) Many of the threads on this and other clubs sites are bemoaning the lack of cash in RL. So here is a major public company putting cash into our game - good.
b) One of Bradford's leading employers is putting cash back into the community - good.
c) The moral issues raised by Providents activities. Clearly there is a demand for their serices which is due to: 1) People not paid a decent living wage - societies problem, 2) People living beyond their means or don't manage their cash - their problem, 3) A large number of the Uk population does not have access to more normal bank or building Society credit ( though recent events in mainstream banking hardly give them a place on the moral highground) - this is bad for everyone but you could say it was better to deal with a regulated public company than some backstreet loan shark.

So yes I would feel better if people weren't forced into high interest credit agreements, but Provident are no worse than any of the other players in the mainstream world of finance - and much better than back street variety - so on balance I welcome them putting something into their community, the club and the broader game.

But what about the social responsibility if the Giants not to advertise these companies when we have many people battling addictions to these sort of things?

I do not have much truck with the sponsors of most sports teams. In fact the only one i can think of i had much time for was Barcelona when they advertised UNICEF.

It all comes down to where you draw the line.

IMHO I would draw the line at companies who particularly target the vulnerable and desperate Provident do. Wonga are not much better.

At the end of the day this is not an issue i can do anything about.

I have given my opinion.



The position on here from some fans ie Roofaldo 2 is my club right or wrong

I have a default position where i always support the vulnerable and the underdog.

My default positions are many and varied.( although i always look at that in detail)

Labour rather than Tory ( although i refused to vote for Blair).

Anyone against Wigan.

Any Yorkshire team against a Lancashire team.

North vs South

Rugby League against Rugby Union

THE POOR AGAINST THE RICH

THE VULNERABLE AND THE EXPLOITED AGAINST PROVIDENT.

I will be at the game against the Bulls. I always talk to the opposition fans. If i am talking to a Bulls fan i will not mention the shirt or the sponsors.

If i see a Bulls fan with Provident blanked out on the shirt i will shake their hand and say good on you.

Given that the target demographic of Provident Financial is social grade 'E', it seems entirely appropriate they should be sponsoring the Bradford Bulls.

Actually, it isn't. It is abuse of capitalism. And my view of the real parasites is probably at least as strong as yours. In fact, if I was dictator I would have cheerfully flung numerous "investment bankers" and other banking directors who lent such huge sums so irresponsibly into the deepest darkest jail I could find, and put them on trial for high treason. In loathing those who so badly abuse capitalism for their own ends, I bow to no-one.

Same way as what we saw throughout the so-called "communist" world was not socialism or communism (Marx and Engels must have surely turned in their graves at the evils that were being perpetrated in their names) but abuse of those philosophies.

In both cases, what we actiually saw and see were and are not serious faults with the underlying philosophies or systems, but abuses of those philosophies and systems by a nasty unpleasant minority. We saw and see the worst side of human nature. Which, funnily enough, was a key point Thatcher seemed to be making in that much (deliberately?) -misunderstood interview.

But this all belongs on that democratic and open-minded forum known as the Sin Bin, where anyone dissenting from the party line is mercilessly derided and belittled. Indeed, by people whose response to anyone who holds a contrary view to the party line would typically be to call them, e.g. "idiotic".

As you have done on here, in fact.

Back to your specific examples. Out of interest, how many of the " poor , vulnerable and desperate" you refer to are in that situation because of spending more than they should or can afford on drink, fags and betting? If you believe such people should be "protected" from taking out loans at very high interest rates that they cannot repay, would you also not agree that such people should also be "protected" from spending too much of what money they DO have on drink, fags and betting? To prevent them having to resort to doorstep lenders in the first place? And if not, why not? Since surely it would be preferable to tackle the causes of their situation not the symptoms? Even if it meant a state that Orwell would have recognised?

Alternatively, if you believe people should be free to make their own choices about how they conduct their lives, and not be prevented from spending money on things that they cannot afford or are not good for them, how can you then seek to prevent them from availing themselves of the services of those who may provide means for them to do just that?

Those on here and elsewhere who have said they have used payday loans responsibly and only at need, and in full knowledge of what they were doing and taking on, would seem to validate the "free will" approach? And to be talking a load of common sense?

It is not a question of "scale" at all. It is a question of causes and symptoms. And people taking responsibility for their actions. And you would seek to treat the symptoms not the causes, from what you say. And maybe prevent people from having responsibility for their actions. What next? A Telescreen in every living room, everyone to use only NewSpeak, and Room 101 for anyone who dares to exercise free will?

And anyway, if the likes of you succeeded in getting the likes of Provident shut down, all you would have done is remove the long-established, regulated and legitimate supply-side. Demand would remain undiminished, so the unregulated, loan-shark illegal supply-side would expand to fill the vacuum. THEN you would REALLY see the impact on the "poor, vulnerable and desperate".

It's capitalism irrespective of the post-facto moral judgement people make of it.

Hardly.

Do you blame the road network because some people are killed on it? Or do you instead blame those who deliberately or negligently or carelessly abuse the roads?

"Capitalism" is no more to blame per se than the road network or "society". People are to blame.

"Exploitation" seems to be the key word here - and how we view the people/resource being exploited, and whether they could exercise any genuine choice in using the service being offered. We all love to see the oppositions defence "exploited" in a game, and we all like to "exploit" new technology, equally you could argue that the farmers of the world were "exploiting" the basic human need for food. My "ideal world" would see everyone receive a basic living wage which would in theory - though I am sure not in practice - end the market for short term loans. But we do not live in an ideal world so I agree with the more pragmatic posters here that better a regulated company like Provident than some shark cruising round the estate in a Merc with darkened windows.

first i hope you dont suffer from vertigo being on such a high horse .
second as to your rebut-le "i always support the vulnerable and underdog. is that why your a Huddersfield fan (your gonna win f*** all your gonna win f*** all)

but thirdly and on a serious note the new bulls sponsor has been around for years since my old man was a boy (in his 60's). Nearly all loan companies offer these high rate loans but they just simply don't advertise it so obviously. Loan companies will asses you look at your credit score and judge you on this, if they judge you to have anything in your past that may seem like you may not be able to repay they will offer you a loan but on a stupid repayment packet.

This is nothing new and the fact your talking like people are being help with a gun to there head forced to sign to these loans is childish.Bitter and stinks of Jealousy !!!

first i hope you dont suffer from vertigo being on such a high horse .
second as to your rebut-le "i always support the vulnerable and underdog. is that why your a Huddersfield fan (your gonna win f*** all your gonna win f*** all)

but thirdly and on a serious note the new bulls sponsor has been around for years since my old man was a boy (in his 60's). Nearly all loan companies offer these high rate loans but they just simply don't advertise it so obviously. Loan companies will asses you look at your credit score and judge you on this, if they judge you to have anything in your past that may seem like you may not be able to repay they will offer you a loan but on a stupid repayment packet.

This is nothing new and the fact your talking like people are being help with a gun to there head forced to sign to these loans is childish.Bitter and stinks of Jealousy !!!

how childish you are.

The bit in green is quite sad, Representing the poor and supporting the struggle equality is the basis of methodism, socialism, the Quakers, the Trade Union movement and mother Theresa. No doubt they are all motivated like me by jealousy!



But with your attitude i am sure you would make a good salesman as a loan shark.
The bit i highlighted in red sums you up. A responsible lender would and should not lend to someone in that position.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

Not sure whether you are disagreeing with my point (you usually do...

) or even (surely not?) agreeing with it?

But I agree with yours.

And, in the same vein, capitalism does not exploit and impoverish the vulnerable; [ipeople[/i who abuse capitalism exploit and impoverish the vulnerable. Society does not care for the disadvantaged and the vulnerable; [ipeople[/i (including perhaps Durham Giant?) care for the disadvantaged and the vulnerable.

Oh I am sorry I didn't realise the rules of a debate . If you disagree with someone then there reply is childish .Also I am so glad you can figure everything about a person from one post. But add I can see that your inability to take on other people's opinions has made going any further with this pointless. I am sure that will make your weekend

I am kind of agreeing I think. When bad things happen, society likes to blame everyone and everything apart from (usually) the people who do it. At some point, people have to take responsibilty for their actions.

Having said that though, I am uneasy about this sponsorship. On a selfish level, as a Bulls fan, I welcome it. On a more general level, I don't like what Provident do, but my argument is more with the society that leaves people in such desperate situations that they use the services of organisations such as Provident. I would help anyone of my friends or family, if I could, to stop them using such companies. But it does not make them the devil incarnate.
The devil incarnate sits much higher up the food chain.
I do however, hope that Provident are serious when they say they are wanting to give something back to the community. We will see.

I unlike Durham Giant am not worthy, I would have to be Smug, Righteous, Pious and Moralistic, so I will say thank you Provident for supporting my team.
I may wear a hairshirt to attone for my sins but then again I think I will buy a Bulls one.

Did Barcelona advertise UNICEF for free ? If so then good on them. If not then i wouldn't be happy with any of my donations being used to sponsor such a big global brand name as Barcelona football club.

At the time Barcelona actually paid to have the UNICEF logo on their shirts. Having fallen on harder times, Barca are now sponsored by the Qatar Foundation, which is non profit.

I did wander when i first saw UNICEF on their shirts. Thanks for clearing that up.

Here is the link for the BBC documentary. www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0 ... _Doorstep/ another link, www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19748048

Here is the link for the BBC documentary. www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0 ... _Doorstep/ another link, www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19748048

Quote ="Durham Giant"Here is the link for the BBC documentary. www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0 ... _Doorstep/ another link, www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19748048'" No use to going to that smug moralising institution they are a busted flush of hypocrits.

Quote ="Durham Giant"Here is the link for the BBC documentary. www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0 ... _Doorstep/ another link, www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19748048'" No use to going to that smug moralising institution they are a busted flush of hypocrits.

No mate, it meets every criteria. You seem to have decided that there is good use of capital for making money and bad use of capital for making money, and if it's bad use then it doesn't get to wear the badge.

That's nonsense.

It is what it is irrespective of the moral judgement we make of it.

I'm not making any judgement on them as a sponsor here. The example you gave of people dying on roads, and is it the driver's fault or the network's? Well it's the driver's. They have personal responsibility for their actions, but those accidents are a part of the system in place today no matter who caused it. I don't blame capitalism for the existence of these companies. It's not a necessary condition that they exist. But they do exist, and they're part of the deal as it stands today. We don't get to pretend they're a whole other thing entirely.

I said no such thing. "Capitalism" can no more do good or bad things than can any other amorphous concept or system. It is people who do good or bad things, in it's name or using or abusing its system. Same as my roads analogy.

That's why I said "seem", because I couldn't think of any other reason to disavow this financial services company from the capitalist family. It is what it is.