Shrimps Trust AGM.

I went to the Liverpool game last night at the Mazuma Mobile Stadium in the fairly pointless EFL Trophy or whatever it’s called. The away team won three nil; scored with virtually every chance they got and did a lot of play-acting and general cheating into the bargain. The way they are clearly trained says a lot about the deep cynicism at the heart of the professional game and their goalkeeper was an absolute disgrace: he should have been sent off for play-acting and time-wasting as separate offences. Morecambe’s display as a team which has never played together before improved markedly in the second half and Michael Mellon – who will be missing next Saturday after his very harsh red card last Saturday against Gillingham – had a bucket-load of chances which, on another night, he would have taken. But last night, it simply wasn’t to be.

Another thing that wasn’t to be last night concerns the Shrimps Trust. As avid readers of this blog will know, I have had quite a lot to say about this organisation in recent times. Their AGM was held on September 7th at the Mazuma Mobile Stadium.

I had taken the liberty of collating various questions here and elsewhere on behalf of myself and fellow fans (who were not necessarily members) which were posed at the Exchange pub in Morecambe earlier this year.  Regardless of whether we were members or not, all of us were either ignored, shouted-down or palmed-off by the Panel at the shambolic so-called Open Meeting on the night.

Despite the storm of abuse which has come my way since, nobody who actually attendedthis event has disputed the account of this meeting which I posted in my initial blog about what actually happened.

As I have mentioned before, I have always contacted the Trust privately before committing to print what I have written so far.

Way back on 16th August, there was a meeting of the Trust in which they assured me in a private email that the questions I had posed were discussed. To be fair, they took the trouble to contact me personally on the 22nd August and this was part of what they told me:

The offer of a meeting with (a named member of the Trust), subject to availability, still holds. He expects to be available pre-match at the Salford home game on the 2nd September, and most likely the Liverpool U-21 game on the 19th September.

I immediately took them up on this offer. I explained that I would be out of the country on September the Second but could meet with the person named by them on the Nineteenth.

I also asked this member of the Trust in a private email to pose the questions I hoped to be answered on my behalf, given that I would be abroad on September 7th and unable to attend the AGM in person.

But – as nearly always – no further reply has come from either the Trust nor from the contact they had specified who was apparently prepared to meet with me.

So the meeting I was offered last night did not happen. Why? You’d have to ask them: neither the Trust nor the person concerned has had the courtesy to explain to me why it didn’t happen.

I assume from this – perhaps wrongly – that the questions I have publicly posed were not discussed at the AGM as promised either. If this is the case, there would obviously be nothing to discuss with me last night. But is it too much to ask to be actually told this in advance? Yes, apparently, it is…

The fact remains, though, that most of these questions could be dealt with in a couple of sentences.

Some of them are addressed in the summary you are about to read.

But we still have no idea – for instance – as to what improvements (if any) are being made to the Trust’s website or if they have taken-up offers made by Shrimps fans to update it.

We don’t know what relationship – if any – has been established between our Trust and that of the most successful English Fan’s Group – Exeter City’s – about whom totally misleading and wholly inaccurate information was given by the Panel at May’s disastrous so-called `Open Meeting’.

One of the questions I asked which is absolutely pivotal to the continued existence of our club was this:

“Has the Trust investigated the actual business or personal links between the Bond Group and Sarbot Johal as was suggested by an attendee at the meeting of almost three months ago? If not – why not? Independently of the Trust, I have received personal correspondence concerning this matter which I have already shared with a broader readership on my blog. Have the Trust any comments about this? Have they made any attempt to chase-up the young lady who tried to pose this question on the night of the May meeting and asked her to investigate things further?”

All we know about this is that the Shrimps Trust has written to Mr Johal. But we are still as much in the dark about this key relationship between him and the club’s current owner as we were when one of our number asked the Panel of the Shrimps Trust to address this four months ago.

In the unlikely event that the Trust actually do respond to this point – however belatedly – I expect them to repeat that they have contacted the gentlemen concerned.

He hasn’t replied. They can’t force him to.

Very true.

But they could independently investigate this matter – and there are clearly those among us who are both able and willing to do so.

But if they are not even asked to do so, it’s not going to happen, is it?

So why don’t they?

I remain at a complete loss as to why they don’t.

This is bad enough – but actually dumbly (sic) refusing to engage with its members in the way I have outlined above makes me wonder if the themes which repeatedly have come up in lots of private correspondence I have received about this subject are correct.

The three dominant ones are:

You’re wasting your time. The Trust is a clique. They want your support – but they don’t (and won’t) consider your ideas if you are not a member of the Inner Sanctum.

I attended the Liverpool game last night partially in the vain hope that – even at the last minute – a member of this Inner Sanctum would take-up the offer his colleagues had made to meet with me to explain what positive strides forward were made at the Annual General Meeting of the Shrimps Trust almost two weeks ago.

But as the meeting proposed by his colleagues didn’t actually happen, I obviously can’t update you on these matters.

So all I can offer my readers – many of whom are literally miles away and often upon separate continents to the one Morecambe FC is situated on – is an educated guess about what did actually happen on September the Seventh at the AGM.

In doing this, I have to rely entirely – in the absence of any communication from the Trust itself to members like myself – on the reports which have been published by the local media concerning what happened on the night.

Here’s Lancaster-based Beyond Radio’s very nicely written take on the meeting:

“Friday, 8 September 2023 10:48

Fan ownership of Morecambe Football Club is not possible in the short-term, says the club’s supporters trust.

The Shrimps Trust held its Annual General Meeting on Thursday evening at the Mazuma Mobile Stadium, where the subject of fans attempting a takeover of the club came up.

This came as the club has been up for sale for almost 12 months with no new updates on any potential deal to buy Morecambe FC.

Jack Steer, from the Shrimps Trust committee, speaking at the meeting, said: “Fan ownership is not something that’s possible in the short-term for the Shrimps Trust, for financial reasons and operational reasons.

“We don’t have the finances or personnel to do that.”

Mr Steer also addressed calls from supporters to hold a protest about the current situation regarding the ownership of the Shrimps.

“A protest has been discussed…we don’t think that’s appropriate at the moment,” he said.

“It’s not a course of action we want to take at this moment in time.”

The sale of Morecambe FC has dragged on for months, causing frustration both within the club and with fans.

In May, the Shrimps Trust wrote to businessman Sarbjot Johal, who has been in talks to buy the football club through his company Sarb Capital.

The letter asked Mr Johal to urgently provide extra information that the English Football League (EFL) requested from him, so that the situation can move forward; or end his interest in buying the Shrimps.

Mr Steer said the Trust had received no reply to their letter.

Mr Johal was a guest at several Morecambe matches last season and put money into the club.

This included a “six figure sum” in March through a purchase of shares.

This was announced by the club after wages were late being paid at Morecambe FC that month.

But there have been no recent public updates from the EFL – which has to approve any new owner – the club, or Morecambe owner Bond Group Investments (run by businessman Jason Whittingham) about Mr Johal buying the Shrimps.

Mr Johal has also made no comment.

Rod Taylor, co-chairman of Morecambe,also spoke at the AGM.

Mr Taylor praised Ben Sadler, CEO of the Shrimps, the Shrimps Trust committee, staff, volunteers, the fans and the board.

“The sale of the club is controlled by Bond Group Investments – not the board – and their one director, Jason Whittingham,” he said.

“We are not in control of it. We get on with running the club every day. Hopefully this episode in the club’s history will soon be resolved.

“We have a strong board and a superb CEO who has made a massive difference.

“We’ve got to keep staff morale up and we will keep doing that.”

Ben Sadler also spoke to Trust members and talked about how the ‘family excellence’ match day experience at the club has massively improved.

Morecambe FC also provided an update on the sale of the club in a statement released on August 25.

“At present, the board of directors continue to work day-to-day to operate and progress the club within the parameters agreed with the owner,” it said.

“This season, as we have previously documented to supporters, we were initially informed we were working to a breakeven budget which would have been an extreme challenge.

“The owner, Bond Group, thereafter confirmed a support package would be in place to increase the budget, predominantly on the playing front which had taken the biggest hit in the breakeven drafts.

“(Co-chairman) Graham Howse confirmed the uplift is hundreds of thousands of pounds and whilst this still leaves us on one of, if not the lowest, playing budgets in the league, it does demonstrate the level of player wage inflation since we were last in League Two.

“The outcome of this is that the club is still set to lose a significant amount of money this season despite us increasing revenues and profits in the money generating areas of the club. This agreed shortfall will be funded by the owner.

“The owner is still working on a sale of the club, and we will of course update supporters should any significant progress be made on that front, when we are able to.

“We hope you appreciate the legal sensitivities of us commenting on anything other than the facts we are informed of, which to date is minimal. Graham Howse is constantly engaged with the owner pushing for updates, with Jason always available to speak even if there’s nothing to report, which remains a constant frustration for all.

“Jason Whittingham attended our game (on August 15) vs Notts County. We had a pre-arranged and regular board meeting at the club (that) Tuesday afternoon, and it made sense for all to remain at the stadium to watch the match in the evening. Whilst Jason is no longer a director, as owner, he is more than within his rights to attend in the boardroom.

“As was released earlier this week, we have been subject to an agreed decision with the EFL. This relates to the non-payment of wages which was publicised in March 2023. The agreed decision means that should there be a non-payment of players wages again before 30th June 2024, the club will have three points deducted from our points total, with the owner also having to place 125% of the gross monthly wage bill from across the club in a separate account only to be used should there be a non-payment again.

“Wages have once more been paid on time for August, a little early due to the bank holiday. To confirm this has now been actioned and we have satisfied the EFL with regards to the deposit account. It is also prudent to highlight that as per the above, the owner has stated his commitment to funding the club over the season in line with the agreed budget.”

Although the Shrimps Trust has – yet again sadly predictably – not communicated directly with its members about what it thinks the AGM actually produced in terms of a way forward for the club and its fans, it did release the following statement (which I have edited) to local newspaper the Lancaster Guardian after the event:

“On the Trust side of things, the summer started off in the wake of a tumultuous season end with a public meeting called following relegation, the release of all out-of-contract players and ongoing concerns over the ownership of the club.

It was a tricky meeting which came at a difficult time and there were many frustrations aired about the sale of the club.

One point worth stressing is the make-up of our board of directors at the club.

A lot is said about fan ownership, which is unrealistic at this moment in time, (as is) the Trust buying more shares in the club or working to get fan representation on the board.

However, it really is worth hitting home that the club’s board of directors is already made up of fans and, without them, the club would be in a far worse position.

We, as a Trust, have a lot of faith and trust in them and a strong relationship that not all clubs are able to have.

As for the Trust board itself, following our recent AGM this month, we welcome the addition of two new trustees in James Main and Matthew Newsham, and look forward to their contributions over the coming months.

We’d also like to thank all those who attended the AGM. It was a good, constructive night and it was great to see quite a few people making their way to the ground that evening, as well as having Rod Taylor and Ben Sadler say a few words.

We’ll be updating you all on our plans over the coming season on social media and via email, so keep your eyes on our communications channels for any news.”

Let’s all hope that they keep this promise and that the two new members inject some long-overdue dynamism into the organisation.

Good luck to them: it’s in all our interests that they actually succeed and – whatever some misinformed and generally hysterical individuals on Social Media might have you think – I for one really hope that they do so. And now – as far as this sorry subject is concerned – it’s Roger Over and Out.