Re: Provident : Mon Feb 06, 2017 6:59 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

Yes you are, and I'm sick of dogooders and the holier-than-thou brigades deciding what is morally acceptable.

Provident make money providing a service millions apparently want. If they didn't then loan sharks would be the alternative. Suggesting they're "unethical" is outrageous. Get off your high horse and get your head around the fact that we have a society where millions are so stretched financially that they have to resort to loans, while our MPs, government, bankers and all the usual suspects mercilessly continue to trouser their millions while risibly claiming we're all having to pay for "austerity". That's what's "unethical". You're aiming at the wrong target.

Totally agree with FA on this.
Firstly, can anyone tell me when we had a better Sponsor than Provident? Their interactions with the Fans, the prizes they put up and their support with the Summer Bash (to list but a few) are unmatched in my opinion.
In these days of overblown Political Correctness, NO Tobacco/Breweries/Alcohol Companies etc. we take the high moral ground whilst overdoing it in the Pub and hoping for a massive Sponsorship deal from a gaming Company is the height of Hypocrisy.

Re: Provident : Mon Feb 06, 2017 8:28 pm  

Look at what happened the last time RL appointed a 'politically correct' company to sponsor the game. Stobart anyone?

Provident have been fantastic for the Bulls. And I do hope we can continue with them on the same or a slighly reduced deal than last time.

[Bullseye]

Re: Provident : Mon Feb 06, 2017 8:54 pm  

"Politically correct" is a term I hate.

It's a free country and if folk don't like the sponsor then that's up to them. It hardly qualifies to be lumped under such lazy terminology.

Personally I may have liked the money Provident put in but I was never comfortable with them being the main sponsor and didn't buy anything with their name on.

As it is beggars can't be choosers. Nobody has to be 100% for or against their sponsorship.

Re: Provident : Mon Feb 06, 2017 9:34 pm  

Bullseye wrote:

"Politically correct" is a term I hate.

It's a free country and if folk don't like the sponsor then that's up to them. It hardly qualifies to be lumped under such lazy terminology.

Personally I may have liked the money Provident put in but I was never comfortable with them being the main sponsor and didn't buy anything with their name on.

As it is beggars can't be choosers. Nobody has to be 100% for or against their sponsorship.

Not a fan of the PC term myself hence the PC in quote marks. PC breeds a society of 'do-gooders' and people who get offended way to easily in my opinion. Yes some people have issues with sponsors which is fair enough. I don't particularly like companies who take advantage of poor people like Wonga and other loan companies. However the flip side is, they help people out who are in need if the people use it right.

As for sponsorship. I'd take anyone at the moment to get a bit of cash into the club and helps us become financially stable.

Re: Provident : Mon Feb 06, 2017 10:10 pm  

Ok ...cards on the table here- my wife works for Provident.

Yes, the interest rates are high but many of their customers do not have a bank account, many still rely on a bloke collecting small amounts ever week.

Loads of customers and I do mean loads default on payment immediately and the loan is never paid back.

It is sad that a company like Provident has to exist, but they are ethical and they keep many people away from the real evil
b......s out there.

They have been the best, most supportive sponsor we have had and long may that continue.

Re: Provident : Mon Feb 06, 2017 10:22 pm  

Quite frankly with what we have done to local businesses I don't see we could claim any moral high ground. And with all the crap the club has been through they are the sponsors that have stood by us all the time.

Re: Provident : Mon Feb 06, 2017 10:25 pm  

rugbyreddog wrote:

Quite frankly with what we have done to local businesses

I personally have never failed to pay any local business to which I have traded with. Never. So I can take moral high grounds on that basis if I wish.

Not that I do in this case. I can see the argument both ways to be honest on these types of businesses. But as a company, Provident have certainly done a lot more for Marc Green's version of the Bulls than I've seen a sponsor do for a long time.

Re: Provident : Mon Feb 06, 2017 10:34 pm  

HamsterChops wrote:

I personally have never failed to pay any local business to which I have traded with. Never. So I can take moral high grounds on that basis if I wish.

Not that I do in this case. I can see the argument both ways to be honest on these types of businesses. But as a company, Provident have certainly done a lot more for Marc Green's version of the Bulls than I've seen a sponsor do for a long time.

OK, I meant we in terms of Bradford as a club, not us personally as supporters.

Re: Provident : Mon Feb 06, 2017 11:01 pm  

rugbyreddog wrote:

For those old enough to remember it may mean we will replace Bullman with Morph

I remember Vision-On; Tony Hart and the sign language woman
....and now for the gallery......

Re: Provident : Tue Feb 07, 2017 7:11 am  

EW for PM wrote:

Ok ...cards on the table here- my wife works for Provident.

Yes, the interest rates are high but many of their customers do not have a bank account, many still rely on a bloke collecting small amounts ever week.

Loads of customers and I do mean loads default on payment immediately and the loan is never paid back.

It is sad that a company like Provident has to exist, but they are ethical and they keep many people away from the real evil
b......s out there.

They have been the best, most supportive sponsor we have had and long may that continue.

I personally don't see an issue with Provident primarily due to the fact that they have been around for donkeys years, are a local business and actually put back into the community that supports it, hence the Bulls sponsorship. The likes of Wonga et al have given pay day lenders a bad name by quite frankly extracting the wee wee. Didn't Wonga sponsor Newcastle and one of their players refused to have it on his shirt? Maybe that's why Bullman/Bullboy taped over theirs!