Only if you are idiotic enough to think that a casino or a beer company is the same as canvassing on a council estate and persuading the poor , vulnerable and desperate to take out loans at massive rates of interest is the same.

But anyone who thinks they are so important they do not need to use a name and just refer to themselves as HIM probably is that idiotic.

Bit hypocritical, gambling and alcohol cause far greater social problems than a legal loan comapny. Then again I believe adults have the right to self determination and whilst you can try to legislate for stupidity, generally it fails and comes back to personal responsibility.

Nope Bradford council own odsal. The naming rights are covered by our lease with the RFL.

Yeah because gambling and alcoholism are never targetted at or affect the poor, vulnerable and desperate.
As JB says, alcoholism and gambling are huge social issues in this country. But as long as your club prospers off the back of these people then everything is ok is it?
Why is it wrong for Bradford to benefit from a loan company yet it's perfectly fine for Huddersfield to benefit from a casino and play at a stadium that receives money from John Smiths? Companies that contribute to alcoholism and gambling addictions.





Are you saying that your real name is actually Durham Giant? If so either you were very unlucky or your parents were very uninspired in their choice of names for their baby.
For a start, it's not HIM, it's Him and its a Cannonball Run reference, but only a complete idiot wouldn't understand that.

Ahhh, the inimitable Dom DeLuise as [i"Captain Chaos"[/i

It's worth watching the film for the outakes alone.

There was a time when sponsors of RL were attracted to the sport as a marketing tool in order to target C1/C2 and D demographics.

May I take this opportunity to congratulate Super League on relegating the sport to a level of sponsorship where the target demographic is 'E'.

Completely missed the point of my post there. Lovely stuff.

I don't take a single penny off the state, not that its any of your business. And yes, there are thousands of scroungers who falsely claim disability benefits when there is nothing wrong with them. I'm not sure what relevance that has to anything though.

these bleeds?

The "preying on people who are desperate" argument is one that I don't really buy on this one. If you are genuinely "desperate", then you'll look for the money you need from any source necessary - legal or otherwise.

On that basis, is it preferable for people who are hell bent on borrowing what they need to borrow from 'Dodgy Den's Kneecappers' or from an FSA regulated and licensed lender?

In an ideal world, there would be no need for these types of 'sub prime' lenders but that is an issue that goes far beyond Rugby League and Bradford Bulls - It's an issue that starts with financial education, industry regulation and a change in consumer culture towards debt. Changing the name of Odsal doesn't change any of that.

And looking at some of Provident's APRs, they don't seem that much worse than various leading banks who charge fees in the region of £40 for a £10 unauthorised overdraft. Would this debate be raging if Bradford had attracted Barclay's, Standard Chartered or RBS?

I actually don't think it's that big a deal.....it's 20% of the size that Sarries got for exactly the same offering, shirts and stadium.

Puzzles me when RL clubs and the comp itself struggle to find sponsors...the product itself is family friendly and reasonably priced, gets very good TV ratings and next year will be in the limelight with the RLWC.

www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0 ... _Doorstep/ this is the BBC documentary about Bradfords new sponsor.

www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0 ... _Doorstep/ this is the BBC documentary about Bradfords new sponsor.

It's amazes me what some so called RL fans will accept and defend if it suits there agenda. These people are crooks and anyone who can't see that is in utter denial.

As for Bradford taking the money, why not - at least it's better than pinching it off their own fans.

FSA and Regulated, now there is a contradiction in terms if ever there was!

So would you be happier with a deal involving Barclays, who have been at the centre of one of a huge rate manipulation scandal? What about an agreement with Standard Chartered - you know, those who were involved in $250bn worth of laundering deals with Iran? Maybe a deal with RBS, who needed £45bn of government support, could be on the cards? Or perhaps Bradford could have struck up a deal with someone like HBOS or Northern Rock - the sorts of businesses that pushed 110% mortgages and encouraged people into years - even decades - of negative equity?

Oh, and then there is pretty much every other high street bank that charges excessive fees and charges for exceeding overdrafts by nominal amounts.

There are a hell of a lot of reasons why the likes of Provident, Wonga and the like are thriving - and Bradford Bulls are not one of them. What I do know is that it isn't Bradford Bulls' or the RFL's place to decide what business models are right and which ones are wrong.

But the point stands. If someone is desperate enough to need to use a doorstep or payday lender, they'll go to whatever lengths necessary to get the money they need. In that situation, surely it is better for someone to use a licenced, approved lender rather than the tattooed skinhead with the baseball bat in the boot of his car?

Ban the likes of Provident and Wonga all you like, but you've got the small matter of what to do with their customers.

When you see the kind of reaction to sponsors shown in this thread?

Seek power, William. Then, you can prohibit the underclasses from borrowing money, and get your wish that they not be attracted to, or permitted to attend, sporting events.

God forbid that the hoi polloi should be allowed in Odsal to taint your air, eh? No sir, we don't want to attract the likes of them. Keep the buggers down, what?

It was much better last year when we were "targeting C1/C2 and D demographics". Yes, I remember it well. Made a packet there, as I recall. Or we may have gone tits, can't remember which.

Fookin snob poseur.

Actually, it is for clubs to decide which sponsors they wish to align themselves to.
We are in a difficult financial climate at present and things are unlikely to improve in the short term but, the question is this.
If you had a choice between a blue chip sponsor or a loan company who profit from exploiting the poor and needy, who would you choose.
This tells us all we need to know.

You can probably find something wrong with any business. Can you suggest some potential large sponsors that have no grounds for criticism?

I think that is poor comment "Richie"
So where would you put this type of business on your prefered sponsor list ?

Suggest some alternatives.

Sactimonious, self-opinionated, pious and almost certainly hypocrite. And making statements bordering on actionable. And hardly the only one.

Funny, isn't it, how much of the vitriol on this subject seems to spew from certain Wakey and Shudds fans? They might say they are not being partisan, but few others are likely to believe them. We saw their true colours when Bulls did not roll over and die as they had expected.

We don't know that Bradford Bulls had that choice (and my guess is that they didn't).

It's certainly not Bradford Bulls' place to decide what their audience should and shouldn't be doing with their money.

Don't hold back Adey, say what you really think !
The level of sponsorship is indeed excellent and i'm sure that you will indeed be happy with it !

You are quite a piece of work, aren't you?

Putting the Bully in the Bulls.

You did it throughout the crisis threads and you continue now.

Cut the insults and shouting down...try debating your points with reasoned arguments and see where that leads.