Next years sponsors

[mcjwills]

I don't really care who we have sponsoring our shirts next year as long as they do not have a wonga type sponsor, as I would really object to legalised loan sharking on the club shirts.

[Wes Tender]

I don't really care who we have sponsoring our shirts next year as long as they do not have a wonga type sponsor, as I would really object to legalised loan sharking on the club shirts.

 

It would be nice to imagine that Cortese as a banker would as a matter of principle avoid being associated with cowboy financial institutions such as Wonga.

[Batman]

I don't really care who we have sponsoring our shirts next year as long as they do not have a wonga type sponsor, as I would really object to legalised loan sharking on the club shirts.

 

you dont mind legalised theft that is the cost of going to games today, though?

[for_heaven's_Saint]

you dont mind legalised theft that is the cost of going to games today, though?

 

I'm. It sure you understand the definition of 'theft'.

[kwsaint]

I think it will be Eterna tbh.

[saintmatt]

I don't really care who we have sponsoring our shirts next year as long as they do not have a wonga type sponsor, as I would really object to legalised loan sharking on the club shirts.

 

What are your thoughts on adidas' sweatshops?

[The Cat]

Adidas sponsor on a striped kit. It would sell ridiculously well. All part of Cortese's plan to massively increase revenue outside of matchday income.

[mcjwills]

What are your thoughts on adidas' sweatshops?

 

I would like to think that the Leibherr's moral principles that Marcus has is always translated into business where we source our income.

[orchardsaint]

is there really anyone out there who really cares about legalised loan sharks? it is, at the end of the day a business and legal. if not it would not be allowed to operate. the fact, as has been mentioned, that we are wearing an adidas made kit, cost approx £0.37 per shirt, by someone in the third world, doesn't seem to bother many, as adidas is a world brand leading name. i for one don't care who sponsor us, if the design looks good and doesn't make the shirt look silly. it would be nice for a local business to have a world stage to show off, but if it ends up being a superstar name, then either way, being able to show it off on the world stage is the main thing. lets not get too outraged, when, after all, it is still only october.

[pap]

is there really anyone out there who really cares about legalised loan sharks? it is, at the end of the day a business and legal. if not it would not be allowed to operate. the fact, as has been mentioned, that we are wearing an adidas made kit, cost approx £0.37 per shirt, by someone in the third world, doesn't seem to bother many, as adidas is a world brand leading name. i for one don't care who sponsor us, if the design looks good and doesn't make the shirt look silly. it would be nice for a local business to have a world stage to show off, but if it ends up being a superstar name, then either way, being able to show it off on the world stage is the main thing. lets not get too outraged, when, after all, it is still only october.

 

Yeah, I completely care about it.

 

I turned down a pretty well-paid job because they handled clients who offered loans at 78% (my potential boss said "believe it or not, some people will pay it"). Wonga et al make that crowd look like the friendly local credit union.

 

It's unbridled usury yet as you say, is completely legal.

 

The problem is that there are some very stupid people out there. Example. Bloke in my digs borrowed £300 from Wonga and lost it on an accumulator. Lost it in the first match when Northern Ireland accidentally beat Russia.

 

This bloke has no job. They'll literally lend to anyone because of their interest rates. Disgusting practice, and if Saints ever took on a payday loan company as sponsor, they should enjoy the money, because they wouldn't get another penny from me.

[SaintBobby]

I'm pretty pro-Wonga. Don't understand the fuss.

 

If some broke bloke in your digs borrowed £300 from them and gambled it on an accumulator he is a total idiot. I don't generally want the law to protect people from their own idiocy.

 

If Wonga's interest rates are exorbitant, why aren't other companies entering the market and offering short-term loans at better rates?

[Ex Lion Tamer]

I'm pretty pro-Wonga. Don't understand the fuss.

 

If some broke bloke in your digs borrowed £300 from them and gambled it on an accumulator he is a total idiot. I don't generally want the law to protect people from their own idiocy.

 

If Wonga's interest rates are exorbitant, why aren't other companies entering the market and offering short-term loans at better rates?

If idiots gets in financial trouble then the state has to pick up the pieces by giving benefits etc. Better to protect people in the first place.

[SaintBobby]

If idiots gets in financial trouble then the state has to pick up the pieces by giving benefits etc. Better to protect people in the first place.

 

Am not aware of the state helping people clear their debts. If the state does so, it shouldn't.

 

I think we're likely to see some pretty good evidence coming out soon about how Wonga and other pay-day lenders have squeezed out the real, nasty loan sharks in poor areas. The sort of guys who take your kneecaps as collateral.

 

I think someone worked out that a Wonga loan's interest rates are the equivalent of borrowing £20 from a mate and a week later paying him back and buying him a pint of beer as a thank you. I wouldn't ban that sort of activity either.

[pap]

I'm pretty pro-Wonga. Don't understand the fuss.

 

If some broke bloke in your digs borrowed £300 from them and gambled it on an accumulator he is a total idiot. I don't generally want the law to protect people from their own idiocy.

 

If Wonga's interest rates are exorbitant, why aren't other companies entering the market and offering short-term loans at better rates?

 

The bloke has mental health issues, IMHO. He saw it as a genius money-making scheme. Wonga will take him to the cleaners over it.

 

It should never have been available to him in the first place.

[SaintBobby]

The bloke has mental health issues, IMHO. He saw it as a genius money-making scheme. Wonga will take him to the cleaners over it.

 

It should never have been available to him in the first place.

 

Sorry to hear that.

 

But people do make ludicrous financial decisions all the time.

 

Re-mortgaging their house to invest in their own idiotic businesses that would even make the first cut for Dragon's Den etc.

 

You can't ask financial services companies to protect everyone. Someone who goes overdrawn on their standard current account to place a bet doesn't seem to blame Barclays when Northern ireland surprisingly win a football match.

 

Short bridging loans also do a lot of good for a lot of people - especially the self-employed. E.g. knowing you've got, say, £1,000 coming into your bank account in seven days' time, but that you need £200 to tide you over for a week right now. This is the standard sort of reason for a pay day loan.

 

Are we better to say "Sorry, best you go hungry for the next week?".

[pap]

They're just an evolution of firms that used to prey on council estates back in the 80s/90s, profiting from hardship. I run a firm myself - it can be a right pain in the arse chasing people for money. However, there is usually money somewhere I can use, even if I have to raid the tax account temporarily. Even without that, banks are pretty cool about this sort of thing.

 

If you have to go to Wonga for a bridging loan that means you've exhausted all other options, and for that to be the case, you have to have severely mismanaged your finances or happen to be unfortunate enough to work in an area of where supply outstrips demand (e.g. Skilled construction labour just after the housing crash).

 

Either way, Wonga are profiteering from a miserable situation.

[solentstars]

Wonga and company's like them are just scum has far has I.m concerned .time and time again they have taken advantage of some of the most disadvantaged and hope some of you are never in that situation when you hit rock bottom.

 

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk now Free

[SaintBobby]

They're just an evolution of firms that used to prey on council estates back in the 80s/90s, profiting from hardship. I run a firm myself - it can be a right pain in the arse chasing people for money. However, there is usually money somewhere I can use, even if I have to raid the tax account temporarily. Even without that, banks are pretty cool about this sort of thing.

 

If you have to go to Wonga for a bridging loan that means you've exhausted all other options, and for that to be the case, you have to have severely mismanaged your finances or happen to be unfortunate enough to work in an area of where supply outstrips demand (e.g. Skilled construction labour just after the housing crash).

 

Either way, Wonga are profiteering from a miserable situation.

 

I'm not really worried about Wonga profiting from a miserable situation - if they are doing something to try and relieve or mitigate the misery.

 

I mean, doctors and nurses working in A&E are making a living from a miserable situation, trying to patch together people who have been beaten up, got injured or been in a car smash. Are they exploiting people too?

 

I agree that financial mismanagement may be why some people turn to Wonga. Although I know other cases too (one mate is a jobbing actor, he does okay, but his income is VERY lumpy...he might even have already done a month's acting work, knowing the cheque is sure to arrive but hasn't yet...).

 

Plus, like I said above, Wonga isn't the last resort - that would be a truly illegal and viscous loan shark.

 

If Wonga are making a profit because some people are in miserable situations and Wonga make that misery just a little bit less miserable, good luck to them.

[bjk]

Liebherr on the shirt would be good.

[pap]

I'm not really worried about Wonga profiting from a miserable situation - if they are doing something to try and relieve or mitigate the misery.

 

I mean, doctors and nurses working in A&E are making a living from a miserable situation, trying to patch together people who have been beaten up, got injured or been in a car smash. Are they exploiting people too?

 

I agree that financial mismanagement may be why some people turn to Wonga. Although I know other cases too (one mate is a jobbing actor, he does okay, but his income is VERY lumpy...he might even have already done a month's acting work, knowing the cheque is sure to arrive but hasn't yet...).

 

Plus, like I said above, Wonga isn't the last resort - that would be a truly illegal and viscous loan shark.

 

If Wonga are making a profit because some people are in miserable situations and Wonga make that misery just a little bit less miserable, good luck to them.

 

The doctors and nurses argument is interesting. Under the NHS, I'd argue most definitely not. I know doctors make a fair old whack, but permanent nurses aren't exactly raking in the cash. Over in the US, there is a lot of that, and the cost of healthcare varies massively, so yep - I think you have a point when you say that doctors and nurses make a living from suffering. For many though, it's a vocation that provides genuine satisfaction, largely on account of them making people better. Are Wonga making people's lives better, or less miserable?

 

I talked about exhausting options earlier. Basically, you have to be in the sh!t to go to Wonga. It means you've no credit, no friends or family to help tide you over - nowhere else to turn, basically.

 

I can't wish them good luck. I hope the f**kers crash and burn. I'm amazed that there has not been more of a furore over their association with Newcastle United.

[SaintBobby]

The doctors and nurses argument is interesting. Under the NHS, I'd argue most definitely not. I know doctors make a fair old whack, but permanent nurses aren't exactly raking in the cash. Over in the US, there is a lot of that, and the cost of healthcare varies massively, so yep - I think you have a point when you say that doctors and nurses make a living from suffering. For many though, it's a vocation that provides genuine satisfaction, largely on account of them making people better. Are Wonga making people's lives better, or less miserable?

 

I talked about exhausting options earlier. Basically, you have to be in the sh!t to go to Wonga. It means you've no credit, no friends or family to help tide you over - nowhere else to turn, basically.

 

I can't wish them good luck. I hope the f**kers crash and burn. I'm amazed that there has not been more of a furore over their association with Newcastle United.

 

Never really got why we don't like people making a profit from "caring sharing stuff".

 

It's okay to get rich by running a chain of hotels or singing pop songs, but if you're skill is nursing the sick back to health or helping kids become numerate and literate and helping people who have screwed up their finances, you're supposed to do this basically out of altruism and kindness.

 

I think that's the wrong way round, I'd be very happy indeed for people to get stinking rich by, say, running a chain of brilliant schools or superb hospitals. That seems to me to easily as justfiable a way to become a multi-millionaire as, say, being a professional footballer.

[hypochondriac]

The doctors and nurses argument is interesting. Under the NHS, I'd argue most definitely not. I know doctors make a fair old whack, but permanent nurses aren't exactly raking in the cash. Over in the US, there is a lot of that, and the cost of healthcare varies massively, so yep - I think you have a point when you say that doctors and nurses make a living from suffering. For many though, it's a vocation that provides genuine satisfaction, largely on account of them making people better. Are Wonga making people's lives better, or less miserable?

 

I talked about exhausting options earlier. Basically, you have to be in the sh!t to go to Wonga. It means you've no credit, no friends or family to help tide you over - nowhere else to turn, basically.

 

I can't wish them good luck. I hope the f**kers crash and burn. I'm amazed that there has not been more of a furore over their association with Newcastle United.

 

Agree with you here. I suspect it is because newcastle have been a laughing stock for a while so it is not that surprising. I am surprised these loan companies have not been banned sooner though.

[pap]

Never really got why we don't like people making a profit from "caring sharing stuff".

 

It's okay to get rich by running a chain of hotels or singing pop songs, but if you're skill is nursing the sick back to health or helping kids become numerate and literate and helping people who have screwed up their finances, you're supposed to do this basically out of altruism and kindness.

 

I think that's the wrong way round, I'd be very happy indeed for people to get stinking rich by, say, running a chain of brilliant schools or superb hospitals. That seems to me to easily as justfiable a way to become a multi-millionaire as, say, being a professional footballer.

 

It's simple. To profit from health you need sick people. Big pharma charges huge prices for their wares and actively litigates against countries that try to produce clone variants. Profit margin before human life. It's repellent.

[SaintBobby]

It's simple. To profit from health you need sick people. Big pharma charges huge prices for their wares and actively litigates against countries that try to produce clone variants. Profit margin before human life. It's repellent.

 

That seems like a specific complaint against some pharma companies.

 

You wouldn't object to, say, Rocco Forte running a chain of brilliant schools and getting rich from it?

 

It's not "profits before humanity", it's a profit for helping humanity. At the moment, if Rocco Forte's main aim is to get rich, but (say) his main ability would be running a chain of schools, he is going to decide to do something he is less good at (say, running hotels).

 

So, people who enjoy nice hotels benefit from his decision. Rocco Forte also gets rich. And kids suffer because there's less talented people helping them to become numerate and literate.

 

I think it's actually immoral NOT to allow people to make decent profits in services like health and education for just this reason.

 

That's not to say I approve of the behaviour of all companies (we need to make sure they aren't incentivisied to e.g. make people sick only to then financially benefit from curing them for example!) but then the state isn't exactly a paragon of virtue either (see Mid Staffs causing 1,200+ needless deaths, terrible abuse in many state-run children's homes etc etc)

[Patrick Bateman]

I don't really care who we have sponsoring our shirts next year as long as they do not have a wonga type sponsor, as I would really object to legalised loan sharking on the club shirts.

 

I would love no sponsor, as per our 125th anniversary kit, OR, a charity. Saints Foundation perhaps?

 

My job is about driving up incremental revenue, but for this it's one thing I think (with the improved TV deals) that Saints can be more romantic and give a bit back.

[Patrick Bateman]

Wonga and company's like them are just scum has far has I.m concerned .time and time again they have taken advantage of some of the most disadvantaged and hope some of you are never in that situation when you hit rock bottom.

 

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk now Free

 

Agreed. If I had the money I'd love to open up some proper rivals that were not for profit to wipe those companies out. Bring on the Euromillions

[Wes Tender]

Wonga and company's like them are just scum has far has I.m concerned .time and time again they have taken advantage of some of the most disadvantaged and hope some of you are never in that situation when you hit rock bottom.

 

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk now Free

I'm in total agreement. The lowest of the low. But as I say, I don't think for one minute that Cortese as a former banker would wish to have us associated with sh*t like that.

[toofarnorth]

I would love no sponsor, as per our 125th anniversary kit, OR, a charity. Saints Foundation perhaps?

 

My job is about driving up incremental revenue, but for this it's one thing I think (with the improved TV deals) that Saints can be more romantic and give a bit back.

 

I'd rather tickets were cheaper than no sponsor

[pap]

That seems like a specific complaint against some pharma companies.

 

You wouldn't object to, say, Rocco Forte running a chain of brilliant schools and getting rich from it?

 

It's not "profits before humanity", it's a profit for helping humanity. At the moment, if Rocco Forte's main aim is to get rich, but (say) his main ability would be running a chain of schools, he is going to decide to do something he is less good at (say, running hotels).

 

So, people who enjoy nice hotels benefit from his decision. Rocco Forte also gets rich. And kids suffer because there's less talented people helping them to become numerate and literate.

 

I think it's actually immoral NOT to allow people to make decent profits in services like health and education for just this reason.

 

That's not to say I approve of the behaviour of all companies (we need to make sure they aren't incentivisied to e.g. make people sick only to then financially benefit from curing them for example!) but then the state isn't exactly a paragon of virtue either (see Mid Staffs causing 1,200+ needless deaths, terrible abuse in many state-run children's homes etc etc)

 

Actually, probs would.

 

Parents and students alike baulk at Uni fees here, but for a maximum of 9K UKP p.a., your kid can go to Oxford or Cambridge if they are bright enough.

 

Massachusetts Institute of Technology is about forty grand (UKP) a year. Big diff.

[Frank's cousin]

It's simple. To profit from health you need sick people. Big pharma charges huge prices for their wares and actively litigates against countries that try to produce clone variants. Profit margin before human life. It's repellent.

 

Sorry Pap, that is typically naive - drug costs represent only about 10% of annual health care spend - the rest being the cost of infrastructure, equipment and the staffing. Yes drugs have international patents - typically about 20-25 years from discovery of the active molecule or molecules - and usually after 10 -15 years from first animal studies to marketing authorization and about £1bn to get a drug to market, they have around 10 years to recoup not only these costs, but cover all those that never made it yet still went to expensive phase 2 studies... and cover their operating costs ...and yes make a profit.

 

There are no such things as 'clone variants' - there are those countries like china and India that actively try and copy patent protected medicines and in some cases launch these without the standards of clinical studies that would be necessary under FDA (US) or EMA(EU) regulatory standards... yet potentially put the patent holder at risk of litigation should these 'fakes' or copies find their way back into traditional markets - and they do.... for a profit to those who make them.

 

Biosimilars is another matter and not to be confused with direct copies.

 

Big Pharma are no angels, like any shareholder company, their profits provide dividends, but their profits also drive innovation and advancement of medicine - and in the UK, we dont have access to ALL available drugs either simply because NICE uses a measure known as a QALY (Quality adjusted life year) at which it sets a £30k threshold, and many new drugs dont come in under that...

 

I dont work for a Pharma, but I work in the industry. Pharma is not always doing the right thing and is rightly criticised, heavily fined ($billions) etc when it breaks the rules - but your comment is typical of those that have read too many sensationalist headlines.

[bender]

If idiots gets in financial trouble then the state has to pick up the pieces by giving benefits etc. Better to protect people in the first place.

 

the state is way too soft on people who borrow money they dont end up paying back. If the tax payer has to bail them out, then they should have to do community service to the equivalent money so the tax payer effectively gets his/her money back.

[SaintBobby]

Actually, probs would.

 

Parents and students alike baulk at Uni fees here, but for a maximum of 9K UKP p.a., your kid can go to Oxford or Cambridge if they are bright enough.

 

Massachusetts Institute of Technology is about forty grand (UKP) a year. Big diff.

 

Well, I'd be surprised if that's down to MIT making a profit of £31,000 a student.

 

In any event, even if you want to cap English univeristy fees at £9k pa, I'm assuming you wouldn't object to someone setting up their own university and charging £9k per student but only spending, say, £6K per student - i.e. making a £3K profit per student?

 

People would only go if they thought it was worth it - otherwise they could go to a not-for-profit university where all £9K is spent on them. But maybe the profit-making uni has such brilliant dynamism, efficiency, imagination and creativity that their offering is still very attractive.

 

If it is and they make a huge profit, good luck to them. I wouldn't say they were exploiting human misery or desperation ("young people being desperate for an education given the poor state of the job market" etc etc), I'd say they were providing a great service that people wanted to buy.

[Scudamore]

And there was me thinking this was a thread about next season's sponsors...

[SaintBobby]

And there was me thinking this was a thread about next season's sponsors...

 

It will either be MIT or Wonga.

 

I'm happy with either!

[pap]

And there was me thinking this was a thread about next season's sponsors...

 

That's fair

 

To speak seriously to the OP, and go for something I would approve of, how about Cunard? Classy historic brand with a long association with the city.

 

Prawn sandwich sales could rocket.

[pap]

Sorry Pap, that is typically naive - drug costs represent only about 10% of annual health care spend - the rest being the cost of infrastructure, equipment and the staffing. Yes drugs have international patents - typically about 20-25 years from discovery of the active molecule or molecules - and usually after 10 -15 years from first animal studies to marketing authorization and about £1bn to get a drug to market, they have around 10 years to recoup not only these costs, but cover all those that never made it yet still went to expensive phase 2 studies... and cover their operating costs ...and yes make a profit.

 

There are no such things as 'clone variants' - there are those countries like china and India that actively try and copy patent protected medicines and in some cases launch these without the standards of clinical studies that would be necessary under FDA (US) or EMA(EU) regulatory standards... yet potentially put the patent holder at risk of litigation should these 'fakes' or copies find their way back into traditional markets - and they do.... for a profit to those who make them.

 

Biosimilars is another matter and not to be confused with direct copies.

 

Big Pharma are no angels, like any shareholder company, their profits provide dividends, but their profits also drive innovation and advancement of medicine - and in the UK, we dont have access to ALL available drugs either simply because NICE uses a measure known as a QALY (Quality adjusted life year) at which it sets a £30k threshold, and many new drugs dont come in under that...

 

I dont work for a Pharma, but I work in the industry. Pharma is not always doing the right thing and is rightly criticised, heavily fined ($billions) etc when it breaks the rules - but your comment is typical of those that have read too many sensationalist headlines.

 

Frank's cousin - I feel as if I've brought a kitchen knife to a gunfight. You're correct in your assumptions. My criticism comes from a high-level perspective which is undoubtedly led by the headlines. I can't claim to know much about the internals of big pharma, save the obvious, such as large outlay on R&D, trials, training government approval. I also know it's not necessarily a licence to print money, as Pfizer's recent troubles have shown.

 

Even so, the headlines have been interesting enough. My overriding case would be that of the introduction of generic HIV drugs in South Africa, and the fact that 40 pharmaceutical companies went after the South African government.

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1119675/

 

In this case, the headlines were damning. It was a clear case of profit over human need. Those companies knew that lives would be lost as a result of a successful litigation, but went for it anyway. The outrage at the time created public pressure that put this issue to bed years ago. Companies are either not enforcing the patents or sub-licensing the drug as a generic to the local pharmaceuticals.

 

So while I can't say I've plumbed the depths of big pharma, even the layman's perspective shows that they can be utter bastards when they want to be.

[Frank's cousin]

Frank's cousin - I feel as if I've brought a kitchen knife to a gunfight. You're correct in your assumptions. My criticism comes from a high-level perspective which is undoubtedly led by the headlines. I can't claim to know much about the internals of big pharma, save the obvious, such as large outlay on R&D, trials, training government approval. I also know it's not necessarily a licence to print money, as Pfizer's recent troubles have shown.

 

Even so, the headlines have been interesting enough. My overriding case would be that of the introduction of generic HIV drugs in South Africa, and the fact that 40 pharmaceutical companies went after the South African government.

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1119675/

 

In this case, the headlines were damning. It was a clear case of profit over human need. Those companies knew that lives would be lost as a result of a successful litigation, but went for it anyway. The outrage at the time created public pressure that put this issue to bed years ago. Companies are either not enforcing the patents or sub-licensing the drug as a generic to the local pharmaceuticals.

 

So while I can't say I've plumbed the depths of big pharma, even the layman's perspective shows that they can be utter bastards when they want to be.

 

 

Like I said, not angelic, but that article is from 2001 - and you have to put that in context. The SA government had passed legislation giving greater controls to reduce the amounts paid for medicines- fair enough and in most cases drugs were supplied at these lower rates- the problem which you may remember was the volume of these medicines that were then exported back to US and Canada as grey imports or what is known as parallel trade. In effect imports of cheaper drugs back into more expensively priced markets... As to localised generic manufacture, of drugs still under patent, well it's a difficult debate, it is against international laws- and undermines the revenue of those that invested in the development of the product. If patent protection periods were extended, then better (lower) prices could be achieved, but these countries also need to take control of illegal exports if they are looking to secure drugs at more affordable rates.... Which everyone is trying in this economic climate.

Drug prices have always varied across markets - even with the Eu and parallel trade is a big problem for some companies. In the last 10 years most pharmacy do provide medicines to developing nations at gravely reduced prices but it's understandable they want guarantees these won't end up back in US or EU markets ....

 

Anyway, gone off topic. New sponsor? No way to Wonga et al for me, nor would I be too happy with yet another of these online betting firms - but I would be morally at peace with a GSK .... Yes nothing is squeaky clean in business, but it's that capitalist desire for the profits that have seen the amazing advances in medicines in the last 30 years.

[The9]

What are your thoughts on adidas' sweatshops?

 

I am reliably informed by someone who works in the fabric industry that the likes of adidas and Nike are amongst the strictest enforcers of the regulations, they have far too much to lose.

 

I will say that all the adidas kit I've bought this year smells of the subcontinent out of the pack though.

[The9]

The bloke has mental health issues, IMHO. He saw it as a genius money-making scheme. Wonga will take him to the cleaners over it.

 

It should never have been available to him in the first place.

 

I'm surprised to see a known conspiracy theorist advocating increased government intervention in private life.

[pap]

I'm surprised to see a known conspiracy theorist advocating increased government intervention in private life.

 

If that's the only thing you've taken from my six years of posting here, then some people are doing a very good job. Trebles all round!

[The9]

If that's the only thing you've taken from my six years of posting here, then some people are doing a very good job. Trebles all round!

 

It is. And I'm barely in The Lounge or Muppet Show outside the nutjob thread.

[pap]

It is. And I'm barely in The Lounge or Muppet Show outside the nutjob thread.

 

I do everything, skip. Oddly enough, decided to look elsewhere for semi-sensible discussion on "nut job" matters. It's not me who continues to bring it up.

[The9]

I do everything, skip. Oddly enough, decided to look elsewhere for semi-sensible discussion on "nut job" matters. It's not me who continues to bring it up.

 

I think you have misunderstood my use of "nutjob", that's the term given to the Pompey Takeover Thread by the inmates. The only other things I have taken from non "Main Bored" threads are Bearsy and Tokyos' tendencies, the conspiracy stuff in the 9/11 thread due to its jaw-dropping content, that MLG loves a FM thread, and that Apple/Android and Xbox/Playstation are debates that have no end. So yeah, in 6 years all I know is that you have some non-mainstream opinions on certain disasters.

[pap]

I think you have misunderstood my use of "nutjob", that's the term given to the Pompey Takeover Thread by the inmates. The only other things I have taken from non "Main Bored" threads are Bearsy and Tokyos' tendencies, the conspiracy stuff in the 9/11 thread due to its jaw-dropping content, that MLG loves a FM thread, and that Apple/Android and Xbox/Playstation are debates that have no end. So yeah, in 6 years all I know is that you have some non-mainstream opinions on certain disasters.

 

Fair enough.

 

I'd advise that you don't get me started on rent controls

[The9]

So, anyway, how about Lotus?

[sentry]

Doesnt bother me one way of anther, dont care who it is ,,, as long as its not too be. The smaller and the less intrusive the better.

[Golden Balls]

Cortese will want a big name I expect. He wants Southampton to be associated with the right sort of businesses so the shirt sponsor is No1 in that.

[sentry]

Yeah, I completely care about it.

 

I turned down a pretty well-paid job because they handled clients who offered loans at 78% (my potential boss said "believe it or not, some people will pay it"). Wonga et al make that crowd look like the friendly local credit union.

 

It's unbridled usury yet as you say, is completely legal.

 

The problem is that there are some very stupid people out there. Example. Bloke in my digs borrowed £300 from Wonga and lost it on an accumulator. Lost it in the first match when Northern Ireland accidentally beat Russia.

 

This bloke has no job. They'll literally lend to anyone because of their interest rates. Disgusting practice, and if Saints ever took on a payday loan company as sponsor, they should enjoy the money, because they wouldn't get another penny from me.

 

Why is that Wonga's fault? Is it not the bookies fault for taking the money from him? Should every company have to do a credit check on people before they take their money?

[pap]

Why is that Wonga's fault? Is it not the bookies fault for taking the money from him? Should every company have to do a credit check on people before they take their money?

 

If you're loaning money, that's generally how it works.

[farawaysaint]

Why is that Wonga's fault? Is it not the bookies fault for taking the money from him? Should every company have to do a credit check on people before they take their money?

 

Most country's have legislation to that effect yes.