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"). 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?

Dammit!

Knew some smart would come along soon enough

Thank you for the explanation what went on at your place, and it is nice to know you do have some sympathy for some of the less fortunet, as not all the people at the lower end are scrounges & layabouts. Can you tel me if you know what assets the old buisnes has, with the RFL owning the rights to the ground, and the players transfered to the new company, what is left.