Durham Giant: I think, after recent events culminating tonight with the resignation of the BBC DG over the BBC's inaccurate and inappropriate "investigative" reporting, anyone watching BBC "investigative" reports will do so with considerable caution?

I did not "attempt to defend" Thatcher. I merely ensured that people could see what she said in the full and proper context in which it was said, not just the bits that some with an axe to grind might wish people to concentrate on - and quite possibly form the wrong conclusions.

In the same way that I would wish for people to have a more rounded and complete understanding of how Provident actually operates, rather than just the bits that some with an axe to grind might wish people to concentrate on - and quite possibly form the wrong conclusions.

And the thread is anyway about Provident Financial, not party politics and perceived or real past ills. And I note that you have sought to divert attention away from the past activities of your own club's chairman and owner - activities that I am sure some (rightly or wrongly) will find just as repugnant as you seem to find those of Provident. Indeed, I totally blew an interview for a pretty senior role at Davy's company quite a few years ago, when during the interview I learned of the full scale of the looming issue over (mis?)selling of home income plans to the elderly.

As it happens, I hold no brief for Provident, and am not at all a fan of the personal credit business model. Indeed, there was a time - a good few years ago - when I worked for Provident's auditors. It was then the largest client on my audit group and indeed of the office. I never wanted to work on their audit, since I found it hard to agree with the personal credit side, and indeed for a variety of reasons I never did. Quite a number who DID subsequently went on to work for Provident, and indeed one extremely capable guy (who at times worked for me on other audits) went on to become the CEO. All were normal, decent (and very capable) guys, who I would not have expected to go work for somewhere particularly immoral and exploiting. As I said, I'm not a fan of the personal credit business model - but I can see the niche role it has always occupied, and continues to occupy, in the social fabric of the nation. And I would far rather it was in the hands of heavily-regulated and accountable businesses like Provident than in the hands of the unregulated loan sharks!

When I held the view I did, in my early twenties, I was doubtless both somewhat naïve and a tad ill-informed about the personal credit business. I've grown up a bit more since, and maybe in doing so have become not just older but maybe a bit wiser too. And one thing I have learnt, is to try and gain as full an understanding as possible of the actual facts before forming conclusions. Another is that naïve idealism tends to give way to realistic real-world pragmatism as you gain that wider understanding. If, of course, you are prepared to listen.

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.

Exactly what I said to him

No response

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?