Executives hit back at Crouch

At yesterday's press briefing at St Mary's, those directors wished to respond directly to the comments made in the statement and here the Daily Echo gives them their right of reply.

Crouch's statement is in plain type face with the response of the executive directors to the specific points in bold.

"I feel both betrayed, angry and saddened by what has happened at the hands of the Executive PLC Board.

The role of a Non-Executive Director in companies big and small is to exercise a steadying influence on Executive Board decisions. That is what I, along with Non-Executive Directors Patrick Trant and Keith Wiseman, have tried to do."

Mr Crouch undoubtedly has many qualities. However, few if any of his fellow directors of Southampton Leisure Holdings Plc during the course of the past 12 months or so could honestly describe him as having exercised "a steadying influence".

"My predecessor Michael Wilde and I have both, as the largest shareholders, invested more than £4m of our own money."

There would appear to be a common misconception that Mr Crouch has injected investment funds into the football Club or into the Company as a whole. He has not. He purchased shares from a financial institution in April 2006 but none of the money he paid for those shares came into the Company.

"It was me who dug deep to sort out the Ted Bates statue shambles..."

It is wrong to imply that the Company, the Club, the board or any of its directors had anything whatsoever to do with the Ted Bates statue shambles'. This is a direct criticism of the Ted Bates Trust, a supporters' organisation to which the Club contributed more than £50,000 towards the cost of erecting a statue as a fitting tribute to Ted. Mr Crouch's commitment to work with the Ted Bates Trust is greatly appreciated by everyone associated with the Club.

"... and it was me who put my money where my mouth was by providing a substantial cheque to bankroll loan players."

Mr Crouch has injected no monies whatsoever into the Club to cover the wages of any player or for any other purpose.

He did in fact write a cheque dated 1 May 2007 for a sum that he committed to lend to the Company as a contribution towards the wages of one particular player, rather than "players". However, the sum concerned is considerably more modest than is implied by the word "bankroll".

Moreover, the respective cheque remains to be cashed and the Company is presently awaiting Mr Crouch's approval to do so.

"As a lifelong Saints supporter, it was a privilege to help. My untimely departure today as acting chairman is hardly a model for attracting new investment that the Club needs so much."

There is no reason to believe that the removal of Mr Crouch from the board of Southampton Football Club will have an adverse influence on the Company's prospects of attracting new investment.

"Good people are leaving the Club because of this counter productive backdrop."

There are very many reasons why people have left the Club. These reasons are invariably ascertained at an independently conducted "exit interview" immediately before any employee leaves service. There is no evidence to suggest that anyone has left or is likely to leave the Club as a consequence of Mr Crouch's tenure as a Director or as Acting Chairman coming to an end.

"... the executives on the PLC Board now appear to have unfettered power."

There would appear to be a common misconception that, because he is paid a salary, the Chairman of SLH Plc is an executive rather than a non-executive director.

The board of Southampton Leisure Holdings is comprised of four non-executive directors, including the Chairman, and Four Executive Directors, including the Chief Executive.

All of the Directors, whether Executive or Non-Executive, are accountable to the Board of the Company and ultimately to its shareholders. The Executive Directors do not therefore have unfettered power. Moreover, none of them has a significant equity stake.

"The non-executive directors, all passionate supporters of Southampton FC are increasingly regarded by the board as irritants. Patrick, Keith (Wiseman) and myself have tried to instil objectivity and provide reality checks."

Nobody doubts the credentials of Mr Crouch as a supporter of the Club.

For obvious reasons, it can be difficult for Directors who are also passionate supporters of a football Club to accept that decisions that may be unpopular with their fellow supporters (such as decisions to sell certain players in certain circumstances) sometimes have to be taken in the overall long term interests of the Company, particularly if it is a public limited company such as Southampton Leisure Holdings.

The absence of expected new investment in SLH Plc during the course of the past 12 months has left the board of the Company with little or no recourse but to make a number of tough decisions of this sort.

All those who share a love of this great Club should now be alarmed at what is taking place behind closed doors. I invested substantial amounts of money to build the Saints up for the future, not to make a quick buck or two.

As previously explained, none of the money that Mr Crouch spent in order to acquire his shareholding in SLH Plc was made available to the Company.

"There are easier ways to make money than investing in a football Club, believe me. I have always looked to balance up the need for short term profit and long term results, as well as acting as a conduit between the board and the Club's most valued asset - its fans.

That is what non-executive directors do. They try to provide wise counsel and introduce potential new investors."

Mr Crouch does not have a monopoly on the provision of wise counsel and he did not in fact identify any of the various persons and parties with whom the Company and its advisors have entered into serious discussions concerning new investment.

"The divisions in the boardroom between the executives and non-executives are well documented now. However, I could not stand by quietly.

The sale of the brilliant Gareth Bale was a classic case of selling off the family silver. How are we to gain promotion if the skilful players are sold off?"

Mr Crouch was the only Director of SLH Plc who opposed the transfer of Gareth Bale on the terms agreed with Tottenham Hotspur.

Moreover, it is considered that the majority of the Club's supporters and holders of the majority of the Company's shares concurred with the view that, from every sensible perspective, retaining the player was not a practical proposition.

Very shortly before the transfer of the player proceeded Mr Crouch actually altered his position and accepted that the player should be sold.

Against this background, his comment that the transfer of Bale to Tottenham was "a classic case of selling off the family silver" is perplexing.

In current business circumstances and whilst the Club remains in the Coca Cola Championship, investment funding is obviously needed to enable the company to recruit and retain quality players.

"Recently, Andy Oldknow was voted onto the PLC Board, despite our objections. That appointment gave the executives a clear majority to vote through whatever they wanted."

When Mr Crouch and certain other Directors came to the SLH Plc Board meeting on 29 June (i.e. the meeting at which Mr Oldknow was appointed to the Board) they came armed with a number of resolutions that would have allowed them to take control of the board and the Company at zero cost and without any commitment to new investment.

In the event that those resolutions had been passed, then Mr Paul Thompson would have been appointed Chairman and Chief Executive of the Company and Mr Crouch would have been confirmed as Chairman of Southampton FC without reference to the Company's shareholders.

"As acting chairman, I was not kept in the loop regarding important developments. That is no way to run a business."

The board is unaware of any specific complaint from Mr Crouch to the effect that he was "left out of the loop" on any matter. No relevant information whatsoever has been denied to Mr Crouch. Nor has he been excluded from any major decision taken by the Board or the Senior Executives.

"It is the fans who work hard during the week so that they can pay to watch their heroes carry their dreams on Saturday afternoons. It is the fans who are the customers, and it is the fans who should therefore feel valued and respected."

There is no quarrel with this perspective on the Club's fans.

"Finally, I too would love to see a wealthy business magnate take over the Club, buying the firepower to take us back to our home' in the Premiership. Yet life is not that simple. There are few fairytale endings."

The board's position concerning its search for new investment and discussions with interested parties is as previously stated.

"All we can do is do what we believe is best for the Saints. If that means challenging powerful men in highly paid salaried positions, who are answerable to shareholders and customers alike but who have no emotional ties to our great Club, then so be it."

There is no quarrel with the need to hold the board and directors of the Company accountable.

"From my point of view, it has been a privilege to serve this historic Club, and I am sorry I could not have done more to help."

Today: Chief executive Jim Hone talks about last summer's £7m spree, how the executives see themselves ... and how they plan to support George.