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"icon_wink.gif. 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.

rlOh.... hang aboutrl.

Never heard of the Vodafone Warriors then?

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.

Quote: Adeybull "Sactimonious, self-opinionated, pious and almost certainly hypocrite. And making statements bordering on actionable. And hardly the only one. Funny, isn't it, how much of the vitriol on this subject seems to spew from certain Wakey and Shudds fans? They might say they are not being partisan, but few others are likely to believe them. We saw their true colours when Bulls did not roll over and die as they had expected.'" Quite funny debating with people like you. Anyone who crticises the sponsorship deal is being partisan. When that is refuted by political or social beliefs you are accused of being sanctimonious, pious or hypocritical. When that is challenged it is a case of what is the alternative as all financial enterprises are a bit dodgy and Provident are no worse than others. When that is challenged it comes down to the key issue, My club right or wrong as Mystic Eddie says he would be happy to be sponsored by , " the Jimmy Saville foundation". Then when you challenge all of the above Adeybully boy threatens legal action. Here is the link to the BBC expose. www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19748048. This is what makes it and other companies like it worse than Barclays ( as odious as they are) or maybe better than the loan sharks but that is a red herring and those who propose it know it is Read the information and make your mind up. My view was support your club if you want, buy the shirt if you want but black out the advertising and express your view.

Quote: Adeybull "Sactimonious, self-opinionated, pious and almost certainly hypocrite. And making statements bordering on actionable. And hardly the only one. Funny, isn't it, how much of the vitriol on this subject seems to spew from certain Wakey and Shudds fans? They might say they are not being partisan, but few others are likely to believe them. We saw their true colours when Bulls did not roll over and die as they had expected.'" Quite funny debating with people like you. Anyone who crticises the sponsorship deal is being partisan. When that is refuted by political or social beliefs you are accused of being sanctimonious, pious or hypocritical. When that is challenged it is a case of what is the alternative as all financial enterprises are a bit dodgy and Provident are no worse than others. When that is challenged it comes down to the key issue, My club right or wrong as Mystic Eddie says he would be happy to be sponsored by , " the Jimmy Saville foundation". Then when you challenge all of the above Adeybully boy threatens legal action. Here is the link to the BBC expose. www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19748048. This is what makes it and other companies like it worse than Barclays ( as odious as they are) or maybe better than the loan sharks but that is a red herring and those who propose it know it is Read the information and make your mind up. My view was support your club if you want, buy the shirt if you want but black out the advertising and express your view.

You might need to order more straw for future construction purposes after that effort.

Given the price of season tickets the Bulls had been flogging over the past few seasons, it's clear the previous administration had all those E demographics in mind as C1/C2 and D were abandoning the club in droves due to the lack of on-field success. My only surprise is they didn't prey on the vulnerable by offering those £60 season tickets via a credit loan scheme and an APR of 499% payable over 36 months. At least that way, it'd only cost the E's a tenner a month as they pay around £360 for a £60 season ticket loan. Provident Financial will sure as hell show them how it should be done instead.

Good luck with in getting more sponsors onboard. Cash Converters, Money Shop and Poundland might be interested now. Not sure about Russell Smith's Opticians as their target demographic is most definitely A and B. Those Carl Zeiss lenses and designer frames don't come cheap!

now some one has posted the documentary make your hone mind up about it, mine will never change but thats me, if you think its OK, then fare enough, but Bradford Bulls is off limits for me and my family & a lot of Friends will give it a miss but thats are choice, i will spend the brass on my home Club

Rugby League fans love a good boycott don't they?

Pathetic.

I will remember your solidarity with those less fortunate when they look to abolish disability legislation.

Then again you will think that people campaigning against things they dont agree with is pathetic.

3.072265625:5