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.

Salford don't return profits

As I've said countless times, my issue is people pretending that the Salford version is a problem but when we did it then it's totally fine

No. You keep saying it's fake and immoral and you are wrong. It's nothing to do with Salford.

I'm not wrong, you just haven't realised it yet.

They explained it to me. I understood. And donated money.
It seems you don't understand.

Your whole argument centres on the name they chose to call it.
Everybody but you seems to understand that the "share certificate has no value, gives no voting rights nor a share in the club.

Do you complain on behalf of all the Jaguar owners who only get a car?

Do Jaguar tell you you're going to become a shareholder when you buy a car?

I didn't realise that it would be so controversial to expect a professional sports club to call something what it is and not what it isn't.

They say you are getting a Jaguar....and then explain it is actually a car
Some as we told people there was an offer mentioning Shares, and then explained what that meant. So everyone understood what the scheme was.

Still can't see your problem.

So they don't say "Become a shareholder in JLR" but then when you give them money you just get the custom floor mats?

I'm tapping out. I've done my best to explain.