£40k???? Crazy money!!

I defo be up for buying shares though if they were available!

Didn't take it as such - as you say, everyone has their own set of circumstances. Just trying to give people the full picture!

Wasn't the 'sale' of shares one of the options open for supporters to 'invest' money into the club outlined at the meeting with John Harbin shortly after the end of the 2001 season? Can't remember the others!

I am another that missed out on the original share issue and would also be very interested in buying some shares in the club if they were available.

i always thought the original share offer was made when Wakefield trinity requested that supporters put 50 quid each into the club to buy the lights as the old ones had failed a safety check and the club faced closure without this much needed funding. or im i wrong?

I would be interested too.

How is true value calculated though? Is this only known when company is sold on and valued?

Is No of shares in circulation known so that worth can be calculated?

Think its a good idea to get new money in club and get fans closer.

I would guess that its more of a token gesture by a fan to buy shares, and once purchased nobody will really be too bothered about the ongoing value of them. Presumably on this scale fans invest the money and ask for nothing in return other than the odd EGM, AGM and a feeling they have contributed to the running of the club.

That's pretty much how I see it too. Unless the shares are traded on an open market, or unless someone offers to buy them off you, then they're worth as much as they're worth to you - in some people's case, a quid each, in BIGAL's case, 1.3 million.

That's how I see it too. Don't think my shares are worth any more than the paper they're printed on. Does get you early access to info via meetings but texting and the electronic age means you only get about 5 minutes start before its spread across the world.

Hear what your all saying but you may as well make a one of cash donation to the club.

If you buy shares the normal idea is you own part of the club. If you owned a percentage and the current owners sold onto new owners for a large profit which was realised by their share percentage would you not expect a similar gain based upon the size of your holding

seems like a lot just to replace a lightbulb in the gents

Not if they had only bought the number of shares needed to take control of the club, and for as many small shareholders there may be, there's only one and two persons shares you'd need to buy to gain control.

True. There are also other options available if you want to make a donation to the club.

My personal view - and I appreciate that it may not be shared by many - is that I save my donations for charities. If I "donate" to a business, I would expect something in return, i.e. a share in that business, no matter how small or insignificant in the greater scheme of things. The end result is the same, but the commitment is different. That's how I see it, anyway.

Rebel: My thoughts too but its horses for courses.

Agree re owners buying just a majority stake rather than buy up all available stock i.e. you still own your shares.

i agree but he was very insistent

I have an answer - but it's not the one you all wanted!

The shareholding is currently closed. However, it seems likely that it will be re-opened, on a limited basis, with a singular purpose, and at a larger minimum price! The offer will be to existing shareholders and then to new comers. All in time for the shareholders meeting on the 28th.

I can't say much more (again!

) because the details have to be verified by the BoD.

Keep watching for more details!

Correct

But what if there was a rule whereby anyone buying a majority shareholding at an agreed price, must also agree to buy all other shares at an equal price,at the same time should their owners wish to relinquish.

Something like this could safeguard the smaller shareholder in such circumstances.

True. Depends on how much one has invested in the club I guess. I knew at the time that I was unlikely to see my £25 again, but this was the trade off for access to the AGM and other such stuff, rather than a future profit.

Well........We've all been wanting a more proffessionally run Trinity,t

here ya go!

Then it could, in theory, cost said investor twice the amount to gain ownership of the club - making said investment much more expensive and therefore much less attractive. If somebody had to have 100% of the shares to buy a club, surely this would defeat the object of having 'shares'?

Debentures then?



Whatever the case, thanks for asking, mate. I appreciate the trouble you've gone to.

What is the object of having shares, for a small "investor" in their local rugby league club? Profit can hardly be one of them, given that the majority will probably have invested 25 quid and no more. If the next sugar daddy in waiting can't afford to buy everyone out, lock, stock and barrel, then they're probably not the kind of people we want running the club anyway.

TRB

How will people not currently shareholders know about the offer when it becomes available?

it was just an idea. This topic has got too serious. Shareholders are just a group of people who have the interest of the club at heart and see the purchase of some shares as a way of 'doing their bit' to help the club they love.

Most of us would agree with that. However, there seem to be a number of people who missed out first time round who would still be interested in "doing their bit" for the club they love, but who, if I read TRB's post correctly, may not get the chance, or may only get the chance on terms that are not acceptable to them.

You're probably right, maybe the thread has got a bit too serious, but I can't see the harm in discussing the issue - after all, we're talking about ordinary punters like myself who'd like to chuck a few quid the club's way to be part of the action. That can't be a bad thing, now, surely?