Quite frankly with what we have done to local businesses I don't see we could claim any moral high ground. And with all the crap the club has been through they are the sponsors that have stood by us all the time.

I personally have never failed to pay any local business to which I have traded with. Never. So I can take moral high grounds on that basis if I wish.

Not that I do in this case. I can see the argument both ways to be honest on these types of businesses. But as a company, Provident have certainly done a lot more for Marc Green's version of the Bulls than I've seen a sponsor do for a long time.

OK, I meant we in terms of Bradford as a club, not us personally as supporters.

I remember Vision-On; Tony Hart and the sign language woman
....and now for the gallery......

I personally don't see an issue with Provident primarily due to the fact that they have been around for donkeys years, are a local business and actually put back into the community that supports it, hence the Bulls sponsorship. The likes of Wonga et al have given pay day lenders a bad name by quite frankly extracting the wee wee. Didn't Wonga sponsor Newcastle and one of their players refused to have it on his shirt? Maybe that's why Bullman/Bullboy taped over theirs!

I agree with a lot of what you have to say - however, Provident are themselves on the list of your usual suspects - they are a banking organisation (in the loosest sense). I agree that loan sharks are a far worse alternative, however the likes of Provident are part of the problem this country (and the world in general) faces. Credit Unions are a far better alternative to many of the people who rely on credit provided by such companies.

That being said, beggars can't be choosers. If Nestle or Exxon came along to offer of sponsorship then I'd have their hand off.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19748048 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBY7eOq3Tfw

www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19748048 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBY7eOq3Tfw

They're not whiter than white. It's a type of business that can lead to abuses. I’m not about to get all holier than thou about it but nor am I going to say they’re brilliant.

I agree that if Nestle or Exxon came on board I’d be torn between liking the cash but not the way it’s made.

The response to my original post was that calling them unethical wasn't accurate but they links show they are questionable at times.

When it comes down to it, it's purely my point of view and Provident sponsorship doesn't sit well with my own view of the world or how people should be treated.

Call me a do-gooder, bleeding heart, lefty all you want. I won't change

I'm not sure that any business can't lead to abuses. Look at charity organisations for example, they are supposed to collect money to help the needy. They should be whiter than white but somehow many contrive to give only a fraction of their income to the people they claim to support.
I don't understand how Nestle and Exxon have been singled out as being some sort of pariah how are they any different from their competitors.

Provident have been good for the Bulls and their fans I for one hope they continue.

As you pointed out to the spewing fax fans, the club and company are not one and the same .