So would you buy your mate a drink if he lent you £100 for a week. Say an extra £4 on the 'loan'
What is the APR for that little transaction?
But that isn't what the pay day loan companies try to make you do - they want to encourage you to take out another loan at the end of each loan to repay the previous loan - so that after a year you still owe them £100 pounds plus over a 1000 pints of beer - the deal is more on the lines of I'll give you a£100 and then you keep me in beer for life!
where are they encouraging you to take another loan to pay off the first loan?
If you looked at the link to the OFT announcement above this is one of the factors identified that they have been told to sort out. It states that up to half their revenue comes from loans that have been rolled over and that they are failing to carry out adequate affordability checks hence a large % of clients become locked in to a cycle of debt.
Anyway, we are moving away from the subject really, which is in essence does a football club have a bigger moral responsibility to consider the effects of its partners than a 'normal' business?
...Fair play to them and it's good to see a club take a principled approach but how would you feel if the same (unnamed) lender came knocking on our door offering to up the Andrews deal, which might mean the difference between us signing a player or not?
Bearing in mind virtually none of 'us' haveany idea who is financing the club, where the money is coming from, or how legit it may be, I can't see how we can be principled in any way when it comes to things like this !
Does this mean it's ok as long as they have 'It's a Secret' on the shirts?
...Fair play to them and it's good to see a club take a principled approach but how would you feel if the same (unnamed) lender came knocking on our door offering to up the Andrews deal, which might mean the difference between us signing a player or not?
Bearing in mind virtually none of 'us' haveany idea who is financing the club, where the money is coming from, or how legit it may be, I can't see how we can be principled in any way when it comes to things like this !
Does this mean it's ok as long as they have 'It's a Secret' on the shirts?
I love the idea of a secret sponsor! They could have signs around the pitch with the name redacted.
must admit when I first saw the thread title I thought it was going to be about turning down an open top bus parade for just about surving in the Championship
The APR rate applies to the debt whether the rate is for a year or for a day. That you are not paying the rate for a year makes absolutely no difference.
I give up. Quoting a rate that you're not actually paying makes no difference? Whatever! It's all the nasty loan companies fault and never the responsibility of the person taking out the loan.
I'm off to the club superstore because Nike is a wonderful, benevolent company that does no wrong and I can buy a shirt with a clean conscience.
Well, Rizzo, what would you suggest should be the quoted rate for fair comparison proposes?
Why does there even need to be a quoted rate when the exact amount you are borrowing and repaying is shown to you in very clear, rather large print? Why not compare the actual amounts? If one company wants you to repay £10 and another wants £9 over the same period isn't that sufficient to give people an idea of which might be better? Plus it's actually relevant, unlike APR. What's the point of comparing APR when it's not what you're paying?
Bouremouth partially answered your question. Because half the pay-day loan companies' money comes from rolled over loans. They know that and deliberately strive to make it difficult for consumers. In their "representative examples" they all deliberately use different amounts/loan periods/interest/admin fees to confuse the issue of repayment costs. So, do you really not see that it is good for people to be able to have a method of comparing Wonga's (representative example of £207 borrowed over 20 days) typical APR of 4214% with QuickQuid's (example £200 for 28 days) 1734%? Or maybe an MBNA credit card at 16.9%?
So, do you really not see that it is good for people to be able to have a method of comparing Wonga's (representative example of £207 borrowed over 20 days) typical APR of 4214% with QuickQuid's (example £200 for 28 days) 1734%? Or maybe an MBNA credit card at 16.9%?
Not when the figures you're comparing are not the ones that you're paying. Yes, the MBNA APR is lower (a lot lower) than Wongas APR. But as you're not actually paying the APR then what does that tell you?
must admit when I first saw the thread title I thought it was going to be about turning down an open top bus parade for just about surving in the Championship
So, do you really not see that it is good for people to be able to have a method of comparing Wonga's (representative example of £207 borrowed over 20 days) typical APR of 4214% with QuickQuid's (example £200 for 28 days) 1734%? Or maybe an MBNA credit card at 16.9%?
Not when the figures you're comparing are not the ones that you're paying. Yes, the MBNA APR is lower (a lot lower) than Wongas APR. But as you're not actually paying the APR then what does that tell you?
It tells you whether you are being ripped off. I don't understand why you seem to be so against consumers being properly informed about the financial products they are buying. Would you be happy with Ford not telling you what size engine your car had because you had the performance figures and didn't need to know anything else? Even the much abused LIBOR, whether overnight, 7 day or whatever is quoted at an annualised rate so that the poor bankers don't get confused or mislead.
So, do you really not see that it is good for people to be able to have a method of comparing Wonga's (representative example of £207 borrowed over 20 days) typical APR of 4214% with QuickQuid's (example £200 for 28 days) 1734%? Or maybe an MBNA credit card at 16.9%?
Not when the figures you're comparing are not the ones that you're paying. Yes, the MBNA APR is lower (a lot lower) than Wongas APR. But as you're not actually paying the APR then what does that tell you?
It tells you whether you are being ripped off. I don't understand why you seem to be so against consumers being properly informed about the financial products they are buying. Would you be happy with Ford not telling you what size engine your car had because you had the performance figures and didn't need to know anything else? Even the much abused LIBOR, whether overnight, 7 day or whatever is quoted at an annualised rate so that the poor bankers don't get confused or mislead.
There is a difference between LIBOR and APR in that the former does not assume compounding - but even if you use nominal annual interest rates WONGAs 7.5% for a week comes out at 390% which is still way too much - and as I have pointed out would put the lender in court in many places other than the UK.
Some people don't have the option of just taking out one loan. If you've borrowed money from a pay day lender your finances are probably not too good. When they've paid off the first loan, a lot of people need to borrow again just to keep their heads above water. When you've paid back a few times, the lenders up their credit limit and then most people are hooked and can't get out of a spiral of debt.
Still not the lenders fault though. People shouldn't be using payday loans for things they cant afford. The loans are to help out short term,they are not a long term solution
It's now owned by Reckitt Benckiser. So there's quite a lot riding on them not mixing up the Durex production line with any of the Cillit Bang, Dettol or Frank's Redhot production lines. Or the Vanish one for that matter!
I'm fairly certain we have rejected people in the past on account of the nature of their business - ie gambling website, alcohol or a Wonga type.
Was asking a board member who the sponsor would be last season and whilst he wouldn't divulge (not even sure Andrews was in the bag by then) he did say it would be someone "in keeping with the CAFC ethos - ie not gambling or alcohol" (words to that effect)
I'm surprised how few people acknowledge that if you as a fan buy a shirt, you have offered your body as free advertising space for some brand. Personally I am a bit choosy about which brands I allow myself to be a walking billboard for. That's why I have just one Charlton shirt, an old black away number where the sponsors logo came off when I tumble dried it. Looks so much better without it.
You want to be a walking unpaid ad for Wonga or similar, well more fool you.
I'm fairly certain we have rejected people in the past on account of the nature of their business - ie gambling website, alcohol or a Wonga type.
Was asking a board member who the sponsor would be last season and whilst he wouldn't divulge (not even sure Andrews was in the bag by then) he did say it would be someone "in keeping with the CAFC ethos - ie not gambling or alcohol" (words to that effect)
yet we have pitchside hoardings for jennings bet, bet365, 32red & bet victor. also 'the money shop' whatever that is. and i'm guessing 'bargain booze' doesn't import fine wines from around the globe.
Is it just me, or does anyone else worry that the proliferation of adverts and the like for gambling websites and payday loans may be intrinsically linked?
Edit: for the record I would prefer to have neither on our shirts, although I accept that others are probably also in the "iffy" category. That doesn't makes these any less iffy though.
I'm surprised how few people acknowledge that if you as a fan buy a shirt, you have offered your body as free advertising space for some brand. Personally I am a bit choosy about which brands I allow myself to be a walking billboard for. That's why I have just one Charlton shirt, an old black away number where the sponsors logo came off when I tumble dried it. Looks so much better without it.
You want to be a walking unpaid ad for Wonga or similar, well more fool you.
This!
I have long-running dispute with the 3 network. As a Republic of Ireland follower, I am disappointed to have 3 as our sponsors and I would never buy any merchandise with their logo on it. Fortunately, I have also reached the age where I am not inclined to wear football shirts any more!! ;-)
I'm fairly certain we have rejected people in the past on account of the nature of their business - ie gambling website, alcohol or a Wonga type.
Was asking a board member who the sponsor would be last season and whilst he wouldn't divulge (not even sure Andrews was in the bag by then) he did say it would be someone "in keeping with the CAFC ethos - ie not gambling or alcohol" (words to that effect)
yet we have pitchside hoardings for jennings bet, bet365, 32red & bet victor. also 'the money shop' whatever that is. and i'm guessing 'bargain booze' doesn't import fine wines from around the globe.
A hoarding is hugely different to being our main sponsor, front of every program, on tv, every paper that covers us
Blimey we do have some precious ones among our support. Like Croydon says, you can find offence and generate outrage at anything if you really want to.
It is not as if you are buying the shirt for the sponsor itself. You're buying the shirt through the fact that you love your club and it generates money for them. Does anyone really reckon that not buying the shirt is really going to hurt that sponsor without hurting our own club at the same time?
All this talk about APRs and percentages and all this other bollocks - ITS A FOOTBALL SHIRT WITH A SPONSOR WE DON'T EVEN HAVE, for crying out loud!
Bournemouth asked for opinions if a payday loan company approached us offering sponsorship.
You wouldn't have a problem with this type of sponsor for our club which is fair enough and your perogative.
However there is no need to brand those who disagree with you "precious."
Well done Wednesday - No need to prostitute yourself. These companies are a sign of the times- sad, pathetic times were it's ok to exploit people if you make some money out of it.
As for "what if it was us" I would hope that a club that prides itself on its family and community image would take a similarly principled moral stand.
Bigger Picture! These ads and shirt deals are tiny compared to what the club could be worth when we get back to the Premier League... Perhaps we and the club can look at bigger values?
I'm surprised how few people acknowledge that if you as a fan buy a shirt, you have offered your body as free advertising space for some brand. Personally I am a bit choosy about which brands I allow myself to be a walking billboard for. That's why I have just one Charlton shirt, an old black away number where the sponsors logo came off when I tumble dried it. Looks so much better without it.
You want to be a walking unpaid ad for Wonga or similar, well more fool you.
This!
I have long-running dispute with the 3 network. As a Republic of Ireland follower, I am disappointed to have 3 as our sponsors and I would never buy any merchandise with their logo on it. Fortunately, I have also reached the size & shape where I am not inclined to wear football shirts any more!! ;-)
I'm surprised how few people acknowledge that if you as a fan buy a shirt, you have offered your body as free advertising space for some brand. Personally I am a bit choosy about which brands I allow myself to be a walking billboard for. That's why I have just one Charlton shirt, an old black away number where the sponsors logo came off when I tumble dried it. Looks so much better without it.
You want to be a walking unpaid ad for Wonga or similar, well more fool you.
This!
I have long-running dispute with the 3 network. As a Republic of Ireland follower, I am disappointed to have 3 as our sponsors and I would never buy any merchandise with their logo on it. Fortunately, I have also reached the size & shape where I am not inclined to wear football shirts any more!! ;-)
Lol...this comment came along at just the right time in your diet didn't it G!!! ;-)
...Fair play to them and it's good to see a club take a principled approach but how would you feel if the same (unnamed) lender came knocking on our door offering to up the Andrews deal, which might mean the difference between us signing a player or not?
Bearing in mind virtually none of 'us' haveany idea who is financing the club, where the money is coming from, or how legit it may be, I can't see how we can be principled in any way when it comes to things like this !
Does this mean it's ok as long as they have 'It's a Secret' on the shirts?
Exactly ..... I mean the company isn't set up in the cayman islands or wherever it is because the best accountants in the world are there as long as their "tax savings" are going towards Charlton it's all ok
I'm surprised how few people acknowledge that if you as a fan buy a shirt, you have offered your body as free advertising space for some brand. Personally I am a bit choosy about which brands I allow myself to be a walking billboard for. That's why I have just one Charlton shirt, an old black away number where the sponsors logo came off when I tumble dried it. Looks so much better without it.
You want to be a walking unpaid ad for Wonga or similar, well more fool you.
This is why most people never buy a Palarse shirt. They don't want to advertise they're a cock.
(This is possibly the antithesis of Deportivo Wanka supporters' shirts).
Not sure the FCA couldn't have a done a little more but I await the invitable police Fraud Act trial. I anticipate this'll be sometime after they look at what the banks were doing to each other and the rest of the financial markets back in 2006/7.
Wonga have got off lightly with this sending out fake debt collection notices to already desperate people and a mere £50 compensation per customer sucks! These letters could have pushed people over the edge,cause break up of families,or worse! What they did was corrupt and illegal and someone at Wonga should be held accountable for and charged according? But they are probably long gone with a big fat cheque!
So would yesterday news change anyones opinon on taking tdesperate ash from Wonga?
bbc.co.uk/news/business-28015456
Not sure the FCA couldn't have a done a little more but I await the invitable police Fraud Act trial. I anticipate this'll be sometime after they look at what the banks were doing to each other and the rest of the financial markets back in 2006/7.
Probaby doesn't change the views of people who take out loans from payday lenders and the like as these are desparate people who have no other lenders to turn to?
Comments
Anyway, we are moving away from the subject really, which is in essence does a football club have a bigger moral responsibility to consider the effects of its partners than a 'normal' business?
In their "representative examples" they all deliberately use different amounts/loan periods/interest/admin fees to confuse the issue of repayment costs. So, do you really not see that it is good for people to be able to have a method of comparing Wonga's (representative example of £207 borrowed over 20 days) typical APR of 4214% with QuickQuid's (example £200 for 28 days) 1734%? Or maybe an MBNA credit card at 16.9%?
Even the much abused LIBOR, whether overnight, 7 day or whatever is quoted at an annualised rate so that the poor bankers don't get confused or mislead.
Was asking a board member who the sponsor would be last season and whilst he wouldn't divulge (not even sure Andrews was in the bag by then) he did say it would be someone "in keeping with the CAFC ethos - ie not gambling or alcohol" (words to that effect)
You want to be a walking unpaid ad for Wonga or similar, well more fool you.
also 'the money shop' whatever that is.
and i'm guessing 'bargain booze' doesn't import fine wines from around the globe.
Edit: for the record I would prefer to have neither on our shirts, although I accept that others are probably also in the "iffy" category. That doesn't makes these any less iffy though.
I have long-running dispute with the 3 network. As a Republic of Ireland follower, I am disappointed to have 3 as our sponsors and I would never buy any merchandise with their logo on it. Fortunately, I have also reached the age where I am not inclined to wear football shirts any more!! ;-)
You wouldn't have a problem with this type of sponsor for our club which is fair enough and your perogative.
However there is no need to brand those who disagree with you "precious."
These ads and shirt deals are tiny compared to what the club could be worth when we get back to the Premier League... Perhaps we and the club can look at bigger values?
(This is possibly the antithesis of Deportivo Wanka supporters' shirts).
bbc.co.uk/news/business-28015456
Not sure the FCA couldn't have a done a little more but I await the invitable police Fraud Act trial. I anticipate this'll be sometime after they look at what the banks were doing to each other and the rest of the financial markets back in 2006/7.
These letters could have pushed people over the edge,cause break up of families,or worse!
What they did was corrupt and illegal and someone at Wonga should be held accountable for and charged according?
But they are probably long gone with a big fat cheque!