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.

For main sponsor rights AND stadium naming rights 300k a year doesn't sound that great a deal, or is that how low SL clubs are valued at the moment?

You are George Osborne and I claim my £5.

Halifax and other high street lenders do not charge 400% interest.

It's a self fulfilling prophesy to charge someone with a low income more for a loan...you may default, so we will ask you to pay even more!!

Loans should be capped...if the risk is too high, don't lend.

You live in cloud cuckoo land if you think the CAB have the answers to this.

Leaflets and well intentioned advice do not pay the bills.

Yes, but Halifax and other high street lenders don't give short term loans. In fact, most high street lenders have been in trouble over slapping on payment protection insurance either without telling the people getting it or telling them they can't have the loan unless they take out the insurance.

And the 400% you're banging on about? That's the APR. APR is an annual rate, not applicable to most loans from them as they tend to be 5 or 8 month loans. Clearly you either don't understand that, or you are purposefully ignoring facts that don't fit your argument and if it's the 2nd the clearly anything you say is bunk and can safely be ignored.

Exactly.

I live in cloud cuckoo land if I think the CAB have answers to this apparantly. I got in financial trouble when I was young and naive and went to the CAB, who were superb. If you went in and said, 'shall I take a payday loan out?' They would say 'no, do this.....'

That's why you go there-advice.

I understand it perfectly. Interest is calculated from day 1, not after 1 year. Incidentally, provident collectors take the first payment, at the time of issuing the loan - this removes the cooling off period and makes the interest kick in immediately.

Of course, clearly I didn't realise that Wonga and Provident et al are such benevolent organisations, there not for taking advantage of the weakest in society, but there to make just to help us all out of the goodness of their hearts.

Bless.

It's probably around the same as the main shirt sponsorship at Leeds but obviously that excludes the stadium name. But it's certainly not a shabby deal given where the Bulls have been in recent times and their immediate on field prospects as they rebuild.

Halifax are sponsored by a media company.

stick to supporting your club rather than trying to pretend you know about the realities of the loans.

These companies lend to to the mentally and emotionally ill, the desperate, the unemployed, those on benefits, those who lead difficult and hence chaotic lives. The result is that the loan maybe taken out as a short term loan but when they cannot keep up with payments, or miss a payment and pay penalty fees at the loans often go on for months or YEARS after they should have finished.

If is was a Bulls fan i may have to accept that the company gave a desperate club the money BUT i would not buy the shirt and advertise such an awful company.

I look forward to a tie up with ASSAD enterprises and see if Bulls fans stil want to look the other way.

Exactly. I used them when I needed money and couldn't get credit elsewhere. I knew the terms and the high interest rates and had no problems with them. Just like all lines of credit, if you can't afford to pay it back, it's your fault for taking it out. We're too quick to blame everyone for our own failings, whether that is taking out loans, smoking, drinking or gambling - no-one forces anyone to do any of them!

Well, given I worked in banking for 5 years, I think I've a fairly good grasp of the the realities of loans and what the terms and conditions of the loans entail. Yes, provident do loan to those who are unable to get a loan from a high street bank. But if these people are in such trouble and don't have the ability to manage their own finances then they should be seeking professional help. The CAB offers this help and other information. If they can't be bothered to investigate other options before leaping into a high interest, short term loan then more fool them.

I also think it's funny that a Huddersfield fan can comment on others moral stance given the questionable way your club went about signing Kopczak.

These companies also lend to the lazy, benefit scrounging fops with 8 kids who don't bat an eye when spending £40 in the pub on a Friday and £35 in fags every week but also need the latest iPhone, 50 inch TV and Playstation, but at the same time expect something for nothing.

Its good to generalise isn't it?

You are David Cameron and i claim my £5.
#
Next you will be telling us you are one of the deserving disabled as opposed to those scroungers who are not disabled and should not get benefits.

Its good to genralise isnt it

That's bit of a naive outlook.

Nobody forces(in most cases) adults, or children, to work in inhumane conditions that pay sweet FA in some 3rd world hell hole - that doesn't mean, because workers are 'choosing' to work, that a company exploiting said labour is ethically justified.

Should we remove the minimum wage, get rid of regulation of working hours and let people at the bottom of society "choose" to work 16 hours a day for £1 an hour. Would anybody accept a company employing such people is ethically sound, because the workers in theory "choose" to work there?

Or maybe I go to Somalia or some other place ravaged by famine and pay starving women to be in my pornography films. Would it be fair to criticise me for that or does the fact that they're 'choosing' to do it excuse what I'm doing?

I could carry on like this but I don't want to bore you.

What I'm getting at is that Provident, and other vulture companies like them, are scum. That people aren't forced to use their services doesn't really change that.