I've got an issue with people who pretend that it's OK for Trinity to sell fake shares but it's immoral when another club does it. As you say though, there have been no complaints from Salford fans that they have been misled about their version of fake shares either, so it's all good

And I don't have an issue with any member of the board, I praise them when they make good decisions, and point out when they've made bad ones. Unfortunately for us all, the poor decisions have significantly outnumbered the good ones over the past few seasons

There weren't many complaints from Bradford Bulls fans when they needed urgent cash to keep their club affloat. Not until it became clear that it just delayed the inevitable demise of a club on the brink and the money had disappeared.

But ours aren't masked as anything other than that.

SRDs are.

As I said I don't have a problem with that argument
But you keep saying Wakefield's 'share offer' is immoral, fake, a con, etc etc and this is wrong and is insulting to the club and the people who invested.

It is fake though, they are fake shares, buying them they doesn't get you a share in the business. It's an immoral window dressing for a donation which relies on fans making financial decisions with their hearts and not their heads.

This is not just pointed at Wakefield, but at every club in every sport who exploits the good will of its fan base. We are just in a long line of clubs who has done it in the past, and I can't think of a single time it has turned out well.

At no point has WT suggested the member shares are a share in the business - quite the opposite.

Unlike the SRD scheme, which implies you are taking a share in a new, fan-owned club, which it is not.

If you can't see the difference in how each club have communicated their respective schemes, then there is no hope for you.

I suspect you do know the difference, but have dug yourself in so deep with your faux indignation, that you are stuck in the hole and can't get out now.

"Become a shareholder* in Wakefield Trinity"

*you won't actually become a shareholder, we just want to call it that so that you believe that you have some stake (voting or not) in the club and we can con you out of more money by making reckless finacial decisions.

I do not believe that Salford have sold their deal in the way that you are portraying it, but you gave dug yourself into a hole and have to pretend that there are some differences to the con which justified you being conned

Nope. They are non voting shares. That's a perfectly common thing.
For the 50th time it was explained what they were so no immoral window dressing.
Fans being asked to part with their money with their heart and not head applies to everything you pay for in the entertainment industry.
I'd say this has turned out well. The non voting shareholders enjoy early communications and access to discuss things with the directors, and have a small link to the new stadium. The club have a bit of money they wouldn't have had before.
If you remember this all started when Vastman asked people on here if they'd give to something like this and if so he'd suggest it, and many said they would. It wasn't driven by the club.

They're not non-voting shares - they still entitle you to a percentage of the profit as a shareholder - which these from Trinity categorically do not.
Words have meanings, just because you want them to mean something else doesn't mean they do. What these from Trinity are, just like those from Salford, or those from Bradford and Trinity of old (etc) is a dressed up form of donation.

As I've said, if people are happy to donate - great

But let's not pretend that we have offered something different to what Salford offered but it's OK just because we did it

So if you are happy for people to donate what's your problem? Everybody knew what it was. You seem to be the only one trying to make something of it.