Thats why RL isn't making much money. We struggle to attract sponsorship as it is, narrowing it down to "sponsors that look nice" isn't going to help get money into the sport. The company does nothing illegal, no one forces the public to go to them, it is their CHOICE. If you wanting a squeaky clean company that doesn't exploit people or rip people off then thats most sponsorships down the drain!

Don't remember much of a fuss when Blackpool or Newcastle signed mega deals with similar companies.

Only in RL would we moan about a massive sponsorship deal.

i wonder if they're offering bradford better loan facilities than the bank

They're paying them £300k a year over the next four years to be their main sponsor. Didn't you read the release?

just cos its not been announced doesn't mean it isnt happening

the Guardian.co.uk tels the amount they are charging in interest, or watch BBC 10pm on Wednesday when the man who works for them tels how much they charge, but who cares its only the people on £6 per hour, they wont effect us, i would rather my team where sponsored by Durex, at least they do some good :

Riiiiiight.

www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... rect=false

www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... rect=false

Well done Bradford Bulls new owners, should see them being competitive again soon, good news.

If you don't like the APR on a loan, don't take it out.

I have my doubts (more than that actually - it just isn't) that this is a record SL sponsorship deal, especially as stadium naming rights have been bundled in with the shirt sponsorship which makes it pretty good value to the sponsor. Nonetheless, it's good for the Bulls to be getting some new backing from big, local businesses.

I would suggest it probably is the Bulls record SL sponsorship deal, rather than a ' whole of SL' record deal , obviously as you say, it is a combined deal ( shirt and naming rights ) which can be promoted in a very positive way, we cannot really blame them for that

It is however a very good deal for the Bulls and will hopefully put them in a good position to stabilize their finances for the near future

That's a rather silly response.

The serious point is that such companies prey on people who have no other options. With the choice of starve and freeze or take a loan to feed your kids, what would you do?

It's perverse that the more you need money, the more you have to pay to borrow. If, as they say, it is to reflect risk, they would charge less, not more.

Banking is corrupt.

Nearly got into a rant there...

Companies like provident and wonga etc etc are basically legalised loan sharks who prey on the poor and needy in society.

Bulls got good deal yes but I would rather see provident outside of rugby league. I am not a fan of alcohol or betting companies involved in sport either.

Not really silly is it? If I got to a situation where it was starve and freeze or take out a loan, I would go to the Citizens Advice before plunging myself into debt.

The more you need money, the more risk you are to a lender, that's why you pay more.

I agree banking is corrupt, but now do we have a go at Halifax for their sponsors?

If a conglomerate like Barclays or RBS sponsored the league or a club would you have a problem? Because they are companies that have been caught up in the banking scandals. Where does it end?

Legalised Loan Sharks? The word 'legal' in that sentence proves how wrong you are.