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?