As Aardvark says it's easy to say only lend to the good ones, but how do you find them when they all tell you the same thing.

to say that it's bad practice to have "bad" loans paid for by charging "good" loans is silly, even the high street banks do this, though of cause they have fewer "bad" loans, hence the ability to charge better rates.

It's simple maths, I have £500 and want to make £50 profit - I can either lend £100 to 5 people who I am 99% sure will pay me back and charge each £10 or I can lend £100 to 5 people, expect 3 not to pay me back and charge £175 per person. How can you say one model is worse than the other, both make the same profit and everyone knows the fees upfront. Ethically Provident might be bad (though I'd argue against it) but profitability it is pretty much the same.

Doesn't blast him? More like ignores the point completely. If you look back, any time the VERY dodgy way a certain Huddersfield chairman got his money is brought up, Durham Giant ignores that person completely. He just goes off at someone else in the hope that it won't get brought up again because it basically puts him and his holier than thou stance under a very uncomfortable microscope.

Oh and Chris Joynt didn't slip, he dived to the ground to avoid the magic bullet that killed JFK. Because it had time travel abilities. Cos it's magic....

Baa Baa your like sheep. Following the dodgy money.

As there is no real discussion ongoing and has not been for a while we will revisit teams sponsorship the next time someone announces a new sponsorship deal.

I can't believe you locked the thread just because you lost the argument...