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.

Indeed.

But, funnily enough, Provident IS a blue-chip sponsor. As well as being one of Bradford's largest and longest-established employers, It is a FTSE-250 company, and IIRC at one time scraped into the FTSE-100. And its main shareholders are blue-chip pension and life offices and funds like Invesco, L&G and Prudential. So, many on here with a personal pension or life policy are probably invested in them.

Would we rather have a "blue-chip" sponsor like, say, RBS? The "blue-chip" company whose actions precipitated the Bulls' collapse in the first place? Hard one, that.

Go look on the Bulls forum. I exposed the blatant hypocrisy of one particular poster on there. I just shot down another fallacious argument above. And, in the example you quoted, I merely expressed my opinion on how the poster came across. If I really wanted to resort to insults, you'd know about it.

its all some one else's fault, RBS withdrew the over draft so its there fault not the Bulls, when you spend money you don't have you go bust, most of the time don't blame RBS, & because your new Sponsor's are a blue chip company, means nothing, they make there money by charging massive rates of interest to those who have very little, if they are so great you should have taken out a lone with them to pay your debts off instead of walking away from them, and seemingly very happy about it,

What does it matter?

No one forces you to take out one of their loans, just as no-one forces you to support Bradford. Which is great, as most people wouldn't want to do either.

...er, you mean precisely what those poor disadvantaged people who the holier-than-though hypocrites on here are so keen to defend do? They can't pay their bills, but its not their fault? Bulls can't pay their bills, it (and rightly) IS their fault? Bit of a contradiction there, old son?

And anyway, the rest of your drivel shows you clearly do not have the first idea what you are talking about.

By the way, has anyone seen me defending the Provident business model, or saying I think they are a great company? No, you have not. I dislike the business they are in, and wish there was no call for it. But the demand will always be there, regardless of whether you eliminate the largest legitimate and regulated sources of supply. Take out the likes of Provident, and the vacuum would be filled by unlicensed, unregulated loan sharks who tend to resort to enforcement methods that are not available to proper businesses. Some of the sanctimonious lecturers on here would do well to be mindful of the law of unexpected consequences, and be careful what they wish for. if, of course, they are in any way being genuine and not just taking the opportunity to have another shot at Bradford.

must admit, that made me laugh!

Its good to see that the Horlicks has kicked in, though you were going to burst a blood vessel !
I have to admit not knowing the size and scale of your clubs new sponsor, so apologies for that and it is one hell of a figure (£1.2 million).
However, in the same way that the RFL didnt want Betfair, there is always a choice

you can say what you like, at the end of the day you went into administration, the people who have to use these firms don't have that luxury,they have to pay up, the Bulls are happy enough to put there name on your shirts, so instead of taking the easy road out of debt, why didn't the Bulls get a lone from them to pay your debts, the interest rate is not so high, the option was there
And no i have not seen you defend them , nor do you have any sympathy for those poor disadvantaged as you put it,

Classy.

No, really.

You really, really have no idea what the hell you are talking about, do you?

Bradford Bulls Holdings Ltd went bust ("bankrupt" if you like). The debts stay with the old company, and any that can be repaid out of the remaining assets are. None of the assets are "protected". The company will be liquidated in due course. A new company was formed to take over the business undertaking, and had to purchase those assets, net of (very substantial) liabilities it was obliged to assume. That company has suffered (RFL "fine", credit standing etc) because, through no fault of its own, the previous company defaulted on its debts.

Fred Bloggs goes bust ("bankrupt"icon_wink.gif. The debts are frozen, and any that can be repaid out of the remaining assets are. Many of the assets though are usually "protected" and so remain with the debtor regardless. The debtor is NOT liquidated (unless, maybe, he has borrowed from an unregulated back-street loan shark) and is free to retain any "protected" assets and does not have to buy them back nor does he have to take on again any previous liabilities. The debtor suffers (credit standing) because, whether or not it was his own fault, he defaulted on his debts.

If you are seeking to compare like with like, at least try and get the facts straight?

Just as financial institutions, even Provident and other sub-prime lenders, will not (or should not) lend to those individuals considered a very poor credit risk unlikely to be able to repay the loan, so financial institutions will not lend to businesses in that situation. Leaving aside the fact that provident's business is lending to individuals not companies, so they would not be in the market for lending to the Bulls, there was no more chance of any financial institution lending to the Bulls - or quite a few other RL clubs, for that matter than there was them lending to a very poor credit risk individual.

And actually no, in the main I do not have massive sympathy for ANYONE who borrows money from ANYONE in the knowledge that they are unlikely to be able to pay it back. Individuals; companies; governments. There will always be exceptions, especially the GENUINELY vulnerable, and there will always be significant numbers of individuals and businesses that believe, in good faith or even undue optimism, that they will be able to meet the repayments. If things do not work out for them, as long as they have acted reasonably responsibly and in good faith they will always have my sympathy. Those who act irresponsibly never will. Be they individuals or businesses.

I long for the day that RL could attract sponsors such as Vodafone, Starbucks, Amazon or Google.

[url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20288077Oh.... hang about[/url.

Never heard of the Vodafone Warriors then?