BigWalrus 0 Posted June 28, 2013 Share Posted June 28, 2013 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23078746 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scoobos 298 Posted June 28, 2013 Share Posted June 28, 2013 I still think they are nothing more than corporate loan sharks.. fookers. Try telling the 18 year old who they gave 200 quid to and now owes over a grand that its good. Seriously, I'd be happier with Wonga if they showed some corporate responsibility and vetted their applicants. They don't, but then no-ones asking them to either, in their defense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 30633 Posted June 28, 2013 Share Posted June 28, 2013 Did you even read the article? They reject 60% of their applicants. And under what circumstances would a £200 debt turn into £1000? It's all their on the website, if you agree to it then you go into it with your eyes open, you can't claim that people aren't informed of what the cost is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scoobos 298 Posted June 28, 2013 Share Posted June 28, 2013 (edited) its not like that at all...... oh dear. its all BS from Wonga.... If the gvt cut the fuck out of your benefits and you've got a house bought under the Brown "boom" years, then mothers will borrow to feed their children. Try getting money out of a bank when you're wealthy - its still bloody hard at the moment because the gvt is giving them free money to "lend" which they aren't. This is also why savings rates are less than inflation - they don't need to borrow, but don't want to lend to you either. Take a look at this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2012/may/22/oft-criticises-wonga-debt-collection They also have a fake collection agency that is actually internal. 200 quid can easily become 1000 in a month if they charge you late payment fees on top of that interest rate and then compound it, which is what I believe they do. The OFT cant touch them as there aren't really any rules about such whoreage of rates. Edited June 28, 2013 by scoobos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howmanheyman 33267 Posted June 28, 2013 Share Posted June 28, 2013 As a club should we be looking at a more 'upmarket' brand as sponsor even at the expense of losing some money with an alternative sponsor? When the Wonga deal runs out will another potential sponsor look at us and think 'no thanks' as they may not want their brand to be associated with NUFC/Wonga. Adidas are kitting out a few clubs these days yet they did not want to be associated NUFC anymore when their deal ran out with us under the current mob. They haven't minded supplying clubs from West Ham to Hearts, from the Mackems to Derby in the meantime but didn't want to be with Mike Ashley's NUFC. Maybe it's just me but when you see the cheap deals we do on seats, driving down away support in case he loses the odd few quid, not strengthening the side adequately and generally cheapening the NUFC 'brand' since he's bought the club then Wonga may be the best we can do in the long run. It will be interesting to see who takes over our kit if Puma don't renew with us. Will we end up with 'Macron' like Villa have? Pretty sure I read that adidas have negotiated a new deal with Chelsea worth potentially £200M over ten years. Will we ever get a deal worth a quarter of that under this owner? Of course not as we are a cheap and chatty club with no real desire to become a giant in the game. Fucking depressing seeing Chelsea win the UEFA cup and they don't really give a monkeys fuck about it while we 'do well' to get to the 1/4 finals. Fuck modern football and fuck our owner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gejon 2 Posted June 28, 2013 Share Posted June 28, 2013 I too don't see much difference between Wonga, alcohol companies, bookies, even banks etc.. All can be used sensibly, they can also be abused by desperate people. Their APR is very high but that is because they are designed to provide short term loans. If they lent you £20 and had interest rate of 7% you would pay something like £21.50 back at the end of the month, I don't think they would stay in business for long Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PUGATRON1000 0 Posted June 28, 2013 Share Posted June 28, 2013 Spot on Ant, I honestly think that half the people "up in arms" at the wonga sponsorship are using this as another stick to beat Ashley/NUFC, and they are venting their spleen indirectlky through Wonga IMHO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gloom 21941 Posted June 28, 2013 Share Posted June 28, 2013 As a club should we be looking at a more 'upmarket' brand as sponsor even at the expense of losing some money with an alternative sponsor? When the Wonga deal runs out will another potential sponsor look at us and think 'no thanks' as they may not want their brand to be associated with NUFC/Wonga. Adidas are kitting out a few clubs these days yet they did not want to be associated NUFC anymore when their deal ran out with us under the current mob. They haven't minded supplying clubs from West Ham to Hearts, from the Mackems to Derby in the meantime but didn't want to be with Mike Ashley's NUFC. Maybe it's just me but when you see the cheap deals we do on seats, driving down away support in case he loses the odd few quid, not strengthening the side adequately and generally cheapening the NUFC 'brand' since he's bought the club then Wonga may be the best we can do in the long run. It will be interesting to see who takes over our kit if Puma don't renew with us. Will we end up with 'Macron' like Villa have? Pretty sure I read that adidas have negotiated a new deal with Chelsea worth potentially £200M over ten years. Will we ever get a deal worth a quarter of that under this owner? Of course not as we are a cheap and chatty club with no real desire to become a giant in the game. Fucking depressing seeing Chelsea win the UEFA cup and they don't really give a monkeys fuck about it while we 'do well' to get to the 1/4 finals. Fuck modern football and fuck our owner. Totally agree. This is the way things will be as long as he's in charge Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howmanheyman 33267 Posted June 28, 2013 Share Posted June 28, 2013 What like BWIN who sponsor a load of top european teams like Madrid, ACMilan at one stage, is promoting the addictiveness of gambling a more moral sponsor? what about a Brewery/alcoholic brand? I'm playing devils advocate a bit here, and as much as people like to hold them up as evil and preying on the desperate, i don't really see it myself, i'm not saying they're a great business with moral foundations, but i am saying they're probably no worse than most big business who are out to make profit, that's the point, ok they're doing it straight via cash, but again it's a service no one is forcing people to use. Just like no one is forced to pay 300% markup on electronics when they buy them etcetc (puma offered us a better deal than adidas iirc as well, spurs are kitted out with them too, Dortmund who are minted again puma, it's not like we've lost adidas and moved to diadora) Chelsea got a huge deal as did man.u for the simple reason they're in the champions league year in year out and win/contend for titles, if we were doing the same we'd get the deals, we don't so we won't, hardly surprising pretty sure adidas didn't want to continue with us rather than being outbid by puma as I remember reading a quote from an adidas spokesman more or less saying as much. The point about Chelsea getting that deal because of their success is my point as well! Anyway, the perception of our club is definitely lessened under Ashley. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 30633 Posted June 28, 2013 Share Posted June 28, 2013 (edited) At the time the media claimed that adidas withdrew because they didn't want us to tarnish their image but there weren't any direct quotes and tbh it was a load of shit. If we were making money for adidas, which we were, then of course they would have wanted to remain our kit supplier. Puma offered us a better deal, it's as simple as that. And as for Wonga preying on the weak; they don't. At least not as much as other short term lenders. Day time TV is full of adverts showing people with their washing machine or car breaking down, or staring despairingly at some final notice demands. Wonga don't do that. They highlight the fact that their loans are easy to apply for, simple to understand and can be repaid early. They don't overtly attempt to exploit the applicant's desperation. Edited June 28, 2013 by ewerk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 30633 Posted June 28, 2013 Share Posted June 28, 2013 Exactly. They'll offer you well below market value in return for an easy sale. Look at webuyanycar.com for another company that will rip you off in return for being quick and simple. Sometimes people simply have to be responsible for the agreements that they willingly sign up to. If you don't like the terms then don't sign on the dotted line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howmanheyman 33267 Posted June 29, 2013 Share Posted June 29, 2013 Abbeycentre. Never heard that name for a while. I bought our new 'greenalls barcode' shirt in the Abbeycentre. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene_Clark 12 Posted June 30, 2013 Share Posted June 30, 2013 to try & produce a league table of morally acceptable capitalist companies is a nonsensical attempt at squaring the circle, that shows the yawning chasm of reformist contradiction that defines both Leninist & Trotskyist thinking; all capitalism is wrong, so it must be opposed. http://www.worldsocialism.org/principles.php Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 30633 Posted June 30, 2013 Share Posted June 30, 2013 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene_Clark 12 Posted June 30, 2013 Share Posted June 30, 2013 ewerk, you should never be so arrogant as to assume your opinions are shared by the entire populace; try & remember that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ewerk 30633 Posted June 30, 2013 Share Posted June 30, 2013 I'm fairly confident that I'm right on this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene_Clark 12 Posted June 30, 2013 Share Posted June 30, 2013 I'm fairly confident that I'm right on this one. and i know you're wrong Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew 4771 Posted June 30, 2013 Share Posted June 30, 2013 I'm fairly confident that I'm right on this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene_Clark 12 Posted June 30, 2013 Share Posted June 30, 2013 for him to be right, the situation would require not one single person to be interested in my post. this is disproved by the fact i posted it in the first place; therefore, it's wrong to say nobody is interested in my post. logically, it's not a difficult concept to master. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 10858 Posted June 30, 2013 Share Posted June 30, 2013 for him to be right, the situation would require not one single person to be interested in my post. this is disproved by the fact i posted it in the first place; therefore, it's wrong to say nobody is interested in my post. logically, it's not a difficult concept to master. That assumes you're characterised as a person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mincepie 0 Posted July 1, 2013 Share Posted July 1, 2013 for him to be right, the situation would require not one single person to be interested in my post. this is disproved by the fact i posted it in the first place; therefore, it's wrong to say nobody is interested in my post. logically, it's not a difficult concept to master. Communism isn't a difficult concept either , but its dead because they rejected it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Carr's Gloves 3900 Posted July 1, 2013 Share Posted July 1, 2013 Communism isn't a difficult concept either , but its dead because they rejected it. Was it ever actually tried? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Carr's Gloves 3900 Posted July 1, 2013 Share Posted July 1, 2013 On the WOnga note I see payday lenders may be bammed from advertising. Do we get to keep their cash? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 10858 Posted July 1, 2013 Share Posted July 1, 2013 On the WOnga note I see payday lenders may be bammed from advertising. Do we get to keep their cash? Advertising all together or just on Shirts? We should have stuck with Virgin to be honest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEADMAN 0 Posted July 4, 2013 Share Posted July 4, 2013 I don't touch these scum bags there just loan sharks or as close as if you don't pay up they break ya legs. though my family do use loans provident as its called where a person visits you to make your payments but the Apr is far far less than wongas stupid 6000% almost its around 300% I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now