They haven't done just the same as us.

Theirs is framed as fan-based club ownership, which it is not.

Nor have we sent the loan sharks round to encourage people to spend money they don't have on funding our club.

Ours was literally introduced in an article titled:

"Become a Shareholder in Wakefield Trinity"

You can try to pretend that it's not the same type of money making scheme - but it is

And it's a gross exaggeration (lie) to call the the credit union loan sharks and to suggest that Salford are forcing people to use them.

As I recall it, the Trinity one was for capital, the Salford one is for revenue.

Sorry but it is wrong to say that about the Wakefield scheme. They were very very clear that you were not a Shareholder of the club.

Then why do they say "Become a shareholder in Wakefield Trinity" if they were very clear that you wouldn't actually be a shareholder in Wakefield Trinity

That's a rather conflicted message.

I've answered this already. Wfd clearly stateinvesting in the club.

As well as inviting those with potentially large amounts to invest, the club is intending to issue “Member shares” to supporters who may be interested in investing relatively modest amounts in tranches of £500. This may appeal to those who would like to feel a sense of ownership and be closer to the activities of the club than at present but are not seeking any voting participation or financial return and do not have a desire to take an active part in the running of the club."

Member shares - not a shareholding.

As I've said - pretend shares - just like Salford's pretend shares

Because most of us can read more than the first line.

And once again, you've started down the line of trying to imply someone was mislead by Wakefield Trinity, even though you didn't take the offer, so weren't mislead and non of the people who gave money have complained they were mislead.

So again, I'm OK with you trying to draw similarity to Salford, though there are clearly differences, but as its been explained to you 2-3 times now, posting again that you think someone was mislead smacks of just trolling because you've got a strange issue with a member of the board rather than the share option.

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.