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

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.