Wonga sponsor Blackpool in football bet their fans hate that as much as we do ours.

To be fair on football there has been a bit of an uproar that wonga are sponsoring Newcastle from next season. They seem to be trying to appease fans by bringing back the St James Park stadium name.

I'm waiting for our friend from Durham (long way from Sheffield, no?) to give his response to Adey's interesting nuggets regarding Davy's dealings. And I expect to remain waiting for some time.

I've also known a few people who have worked for them. When I've teased them about they've always stressed that they're a good company to work for. But they haven't suggested that they get any job satisfaction out of what Provident actually do. They tend to shrug and point out "well its a job isn't it". The sort of ambivalent response that I think a few will feel about the sponsorhip deal.

Durham Giant, do you take your stance on your club supporting alcoholic or gambling companies. Do they not feed on people's addictions?

Durham Giant, do you take your stance on your club supporting alcoholic or gambling companies. Do they not feed on people's addictions?

I have no truck with any financial instiution or b ank..

Most of them are pretty corrupt, exploitative and dodgy. That is the same for Barclays, Lloyds, DBS or Provident. Most of them are parasites who screw ordinary people to make money. That is called Capitalism. So i am happy to put Ken Davy in the same bracket as the managers / owners of all of these companies. ( i would not be friends with any of them).


I read the link that was put up about Ken Davy and DBS and from my first reading of it ( and i certainly wont need to read it again ( talk about turgid)) he was involved in some sharp practices that related mainly to advertising, lack of clarity and not being clear about information relating to their services. This is the sort of thing that all the big institutions do on a regular basis ie Payment protection insurance.

The issue for me is ultimately about the scale.

I work with the people who are caught out with these loans from Provident and others including loan sharks.

I talk to them about why did they take out the loans and the stories they tell me are very similar.

It was christmas, they knock on the door and say , " would you like help for xmas", how £200 pounds would help them get the kids something from Santa.

The next thing they cannot afford the repayments and they are having to pay back 5, 6 or £700 pounds after borrowing £200.

It is all about scale i know where i draw the line.

If the Giants were sponsored by one of these companies then i would protest against it.

It is a personal choice. It may be a small step but it is about looking at the wider picture.

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.

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".