From 'On the Cross'

[miserableoldgit]

I think some of the problem is the fan friendly stuff crouch may have done in the past only compunded the problems we had further on. crippling wage bill for some of the players that crouch had a hand in bringing here have turned out to be pretty serious.

 

Personally I dont like crouch any more than Lowe and Wilde and it makes me sick that one of the people heavily involved in the club we love while it went down the pan can stand there and ask us to bail the club out.

 

But if what has been said in recent weeks about what crouch has done recently is true then I dont think he deserves as much of a bashing as the others. He alegedly has put his hand in his pocket to keep the club alive long enough to get a buyer in while the others slipped off to hide in there corners. If true then thanks from me but I still would rather he wasnt so public in his appeals as there is enough there that see's him as part of our downfall. All IMO of course

This is the problem for Crouch though. Damned if you do and damned if you don`t. If he had just walked away like he didn`t care he would be crucified, but because has stayed and appealing to fans , he is being, well......crucified.

[Tom28]

Why don't people do research before writing crap like that.

 

Crouch was chairman for a few months, in which time he loaned out some high wage earners and brought in a good manager that kept us up and can hardly be blamed for the club's situation.

 

You want research?

 

When good ol' Crouchy was in charge, our revenue dropped from 23.3 million to 14.9 million. That was NOT his fault - that was a combination of dwindling attendances, loss of sponsorship deals and I think parachute payments ending (although I haven't been able to verify that). However, as Chairman, it was his RESPONSIBILITY to take note of this and reduce our costs in line with that revenue reduction.

 

In the period that revenue dropped from 23.3 million to 14.9 million, what happened to our costs? Cost of Sales went from 21.5 million to 22.5 million.

 

He acted irresponsibly and gambled on the future of the club my INCREASING COSTS (wages/player purchases) in the hope that the additional expenditure would translate to success on the pitch, and result in promotion and the additional revenue that brings.

 

Under Crouch we managed to lose £4.9m after a £12.7m profit on player disposals. He was running a player/coach wage bill of 81%.

 

Now, these numbers are ALL fact and I urge anyone who disagrees with these facts to check out the Annual Report. The only non-factual bit is my interpretation of Crouch's intentions. I do believe he was running this club as a fan and he always had the best intentions. As fans, we want to see good players coming to the club, we want to see good players attracted by high wages and big signing bonuses and we don't care much for the financial impact *****il we end up in a situation like this when we start pointing fingers and assigning blame). I think Crouch was doing what the fans wanted, and was trying to get us promoted, which in itself is fine, but as Chairman, he did have a responsibility to ensure the future of the club would not be placed in jeopardy. Which is exactly where we are.

 

I'm not saying that he is solely to blame - far from it, but he is a big contributor to our current situation. I commend him for his efforts to raise money to keep the club alive whilst we await a buyer but I have to agree with the original poster and say that the club would be better off with Crouch well out the way and a completely new regime in place. He should go back to being a fan, and sit in the terraces with the rest of us, and leave the finances of the club to someone more intelligent.

[saintjay77]

This is the problem for Crouch though. Damned if you do and damned if you don`t. If he had just walked away like he didn`t care he would be crucified, but because has stayed and appealing to fans , he is being, well......crucified.

 

I disagree, I think his original apeal to the fans was warented and although I dont like how it came about I appreciate the fact that something needs to be done. But I just think he went too far, my old man is at every home game and he didnt view Crouch and Lawrie standing in the centre circle begging the fans to well. He saw it as those 2 are part of the reason why we are in this mess and didnt like the way they kind of expected us to bail the club out. I felt the same until I heard how much Crouch has done to help since and I suppose I am giving the guy more slack.

 

For what its worth my ole mans blood boils when ever Lowe is mentioned so its not becuase he is a luvvie that he has probles with crouch.

 

With a bit of luck we will have new owners by next week and all these debates will seem like they are in the distant past lol

[sidthesquid]

See I have no problem with LC putting money into the club to 'save' it and fair play to him for that. Although it's got to be a drop in the ocean compared to £2M he kept flashing about.

 

What I have an issue with is this Superhero image that's been built around him and how he didn't do any wrong in his time in charge.

 

Maybe he didn't but HE bought Wilde and all that followed into play and for that and his recent foot-in-mouth episode, I wish he would go the same way as the rest of them!!

 

And why the fook cannot he donate money quietly instead of playing the big I am??

 

As big an ego as RL IMHO

 

Thank you for that summary. I don't hate Crouch & I do believe his desire to help Southampton is genuine, but he has long played the same ego game as Lowe & Wilde and I do believe we will never move forward with him involved. He was associated with the financial shambles & the exec fiasco, he was part of the pointless posturing of the Three Stooges as they let the club fall to bits and his 'gaffe' on 5 Live proved that he is a loose cannon, (though the conspiricy-theorist in me wonders if it wasn't one last sly dig at Lowe). I am happy to believe that he has done some good things for the club and put his own money forward, but he should not be part of the future. He is tainted goods

[Lord Duckhunter]

This part of the original post is disgraceful:

 

Turning up at the end of the game in the hospitality suites - with Nick Holmes and Mark Dennis in tow - wielding buckets to "save our club" is a sign of how inappropriate and embarrassing Mr Crouch has become"

 

If Crouch had taken the same approach as Lowe and Wilde post admin, there wouldn't have been a game for him to be "inapproiate and embarrassing" on Saturday.

How on earth someone trying to collect money to keep the Club going until a buyer is found, can be slated like this is beyond me.

[Frank's cousin]

This part of the original post is disgraceful:

 

Turning up at the end of the game in the hospitality suites - with Nick Holmes and Mark Dennis in tow - wielding buckets to "save our club" is a sign of how inappropriate and embarrassing Mr Crouch has become"

 

If Crouch had taken the same approach as Lowe and Wilde post admin, there wouldn't have been a game for him to be "inapproiate and embarrassing" on Saturday.

How on earth someone trying to collect money to keep the Club going until a buyer is found, can be slated like this is beyond me.

 

'Hands on arse cheeks' ;-)

[Fitzhugh Fella]

You want research?

 

When good ol' Crouchy was in charge, our revenue dropped from 23.3 million to 14.9 million. That was NOT his fault - that was a combination of dwindling attendances, loss of sponsorship deals and I think parachute payments ending (although I haven't been able to verify that). However, as Chairman, it was his RESPONSIBILITY to take note of this and reduce our costs in line with that revenue reduction.

 

In the period that revenue dropped from 23.3 million to 14.9 million, what happened to our costs? Cost of Sales went from 21.5 million to 22.5 million.

 

He acted irresponsibly and gambled on the future of the club my INCREASING COSTS (wages/player purchases) in the hope that the additional expenditure would translate to success on the pitch, and result in promotion and the additional revenue that brings.

 

Under Crouch we managed to lose £4.9m after a £12.7m profit on player disposals. He was running a player/coach wage bill of 81%.

 

Now, these numbers are ALL fact and I urge anyone who disagrees with these facts to check out the Annual Report. The only non-factual bit is my interpretation of Crouch's intentions. I do believe he was running this club as a fan and he always had the best intentions. As fans, we want to see good players coming to the club, we want to see good players attracted by high wages and big signing bonuses and we don't care much for the financial impact *****il we end up in a situation like this when we start pointing fingers and assigning blame). I think Crouch was doing what the fans wanted, and was trying to get us promoted, which in itself is fine, but as Chairman, he did have a responsibility to ensure the future of the club would not be placed in jeopardy. Which is exactly where we are.

 

I'm not saying that he is solely to blame - far from it, but he is a big contributor to our current situation. I commend him for his efforts to raise money to keep the club alive whilst we await a buyer but I have to agree with the original poster and say that the club would be better off with Crouch well out the way and a completely new regime in place. He should go back to being a fan, and sit in the terraces with the rest of us, and leave the finances of the club to someone more intelligent.

 

I am no fan of Crouch while he was Chairman because he made some mistakes but I do think you are unfair here. He told me himself that he opposed the execs on countless occasions in their wild spending sprees - in particular the Euell signing. On that occasion Hone persuaded Wiseman to vote for the signing and it went ahead despite Crouch's opposition. Crouch's greatest mistake was letting the execs gain control of the PLC board which basically then sidelined him until he negotiated their departure with a pay off.

[sidthesquid]

I am no fan of Crouch while he was Chairman because he made some mistakes but I do think you are unfair here. He told me himself that he opposed the execs on countless occasions in their wild spending sprees - in particular the Euell signing. On that occasion Hone persuaded Wiseman to vote for the signing and it went ahead despite Crouch's opposition. Crouch's greatest mistake was letting the execs gain control of the PLC board which basically then sidelined him until he negotiated their departure with a pay off.

 

That was a pretty big and indefensible mistake in my opinion. If he was on the apprentice Sir Al would have fired him

[Window Cleaner]

If he was on the apprentice Sir Al would have fired him

 

 

If he was on Deadwood Al Swearengen would have fed him to Mr Wu's pigs,

but what's that got to do with real life situations.

[TNT]

Crouch's greatest mistake was letting the execs gain control of the PLC board which basically then sidelined him until he negotiated their departure with a pay off.

 

 

You should be pointing your finger really at Mike Wilde for putting together such a situation that total strangers where allowed to hijack the club as they had executive status.

Edited 27 April, 2009 by TNT

[eelpie]

I am no fan of Crouch while he was Chairman because he made some mistakes but I do think you are unfair here. He told me himself that he opposed the execs on countless occasions in their wild spending sprees - in particular the Euell signing. On that occasion Hone persuaded Wiseman to vote for the signing and it went ahead despite Crouch's opposition. Crouch's greatest mistake was letting the execs gain control of the PLC board which basically then sidelined him until he negotiated their departure with a pay off.

 

Wasn't that wally Wilde's fault for distancing himself? My memory is hazy of the sequence of events that led to Hone gaining the control that the naaive Wilde had not envisaged..

[Nineteen Canteen]

I love stories like these. The thing which makes me love thim is the line about Crouch spending too much money and getting the club into even more financial difficulty. His spending was out of control etc.

I personally would love to see how people come to that conclusion. How they came up with it being Crouch who spent that money.

 

Because the reality is he was Chairman for 4 months. In those 4 months he appointed a manager on LESS money then the manager was on when he took the job. Got COMPENSATION for that manager. He loaned out supposedly the TWO HIGHEST wage earners at the club. Put money from his own pocket into the club to help with certain peoples wages and the final nail in the coffin had backing from Barclays for the following season. Add to that he was not on a salary unlike two others we know.

Now if he was someone who was "out of control" would a bank support him knowing at that time how bad the books were? Obviously not.

 

My view is people need to let it go.

Crouch put Dodd and Gorman in the position of Caretaker managers. Nobody was to know they would go on to feck up. Dodd was/is a Saints legend and Gorman has experience of being assistant manager at National level. That is slightly different from appointing Stuart Gray or Steve Wiggly.

If it had turned out fine people would not have given a ****.

But when it went wrong he rectified his decision and replaced them. With the guy now considered one of the top prospects for management in the country. But of course the bashers don't want to mention those things do they.

Crouch lost £1.6m when Saints went into admin.

The guy is trying to get cash together to keep the club going. He is supported by a lot of the old legends in doing this. If he can use his contacts and profile in gaining money which keeps us going if even for just 1 more week then whats the problem?

 

Crouch has lost a lot of money in trying to help this club. This time last year you had idiots saying the same ******** they are saying now and this thread is full of them. Lowe and Wilde would save the club remember? They would be bringing in investment with them because they wouldn't return otherwise remember? And all the rest of the crap people tried to justify their view of bringing Lowe back.

Roll on 12 months and here we are. The same idiots saying the same stupid stuff but this time having a go at him carrying a bucket.....

 

People should just tell it like it is, say you dislike Crouch because you dislike Crouch nothing more nothing less. Don't make it out he made these financial errors that put us where we are because that is not true. When he and Wilde were in together Crouch was one of few to go against Wildes spending spree, Wilde lied and said he had the money coming in.

But hey it's all Crouch's fault. The one thing i do know about Leon is that he won't give a **** what people think he lookslike holding a bucket. He cares more about this club then most of you do by the looks of it.

 

Marco, I recognise and appreciate the money Crouch has donated in recent weeks to keep the club going.

 

His errors though have been many and not always finace related but IMO errors or judgement.

 

You mention his refusal to support Wilde's spending spree but how did Wilde come to power initially?

 

January we could all see Burley was a spent force by Crouch was telling us that everyone at the club firmly believed we would reach the playoffs. (At the time I didn't realise he mean't the League 1 play offs).

 

He told us in early January 2008 that no players would be let go for financial reasons and at the 11th hour Lee Hoos told us we had released on loan perhaps tow of our largest wage earners. To put Crouch's original quote into context JIm Hone had said the future of teh club was in doubt without significant investment. So as nothing had changed in the interim that was a brave call from Crouch.

 

Did Crouch take 6 weeks to realise that wages to turnover ratio of 81% maybe a tad high?

 

He made managerial appointments/decisions that made Lowe's look good and we seemed to bumble through until alledgedly a client of Chris McMenemy's came into view from nowhere? Crouch's decision or Lawrie McMenemy's?

 

No matter how much Crouch surrounds himself with ex-Saints, lets it be known how much he has donated or was willing to give (The £2m fiasco blew up in his face) or joins the rank and file with bucket in hand it does not IMO compensate for his part in the downfall that extends beyond his time as chairman.

 

The radio 5 Live gaff was emabarrassing for everyone.

 

What will Crouch's epitaph be? Investment is likely soon.

 

The man is undeniably a passionate Saints fan but that doesn't mean he is capable of running a highly pressurised and fickle business. What better example do you want when you see who he chose as his closest confidante with regard to football matters, someone whose last involvement in the game pre-dates the Premier league and there can't be many who can argue the culture of the game has changed beyond recognition since then.

 

Leon is donating a huge amount of money but can still cause the club problems as witnessed by his R5 Live interview. The hypothetical question is has he put more in than in has inadvertently taken out through bad decision making and at times amateur PR.

[sotonist]

In terms of his future involvement i'd say the quote that we'd only set up the PLC to avoid a points deduction should be the end of Leon's involvement as a representative or director of the club.

 

He means well, in terms of his performance as chairman the only thing to criticise was sticking with D&G too long. But siding with Wilde and his renegade board evidently without checking their credentials carefully may have buried us and his constant media gaffes are no good for the future of the club.

 

Clean slate as FC says.

[Window Cleaner]

 

Clean slate as FC says.

 

 

Spot on, that's what we need. 1 owner, 1 boss with his team to sort us out.

No more greek democracies please.

No more illusions from the fans that they have a part in the way the club is run. An opinion to voice yes, hands on-no.

We need to forget that space that is the boardroom for a while.Whoever is in there needs to provide direction and money if necessary not be a permanent point of discussion.

[Nineteen Canteen]

I am no fan of Crouch while he was Chairman because he made some mistakes but I do think you are unfair here. He told me himself that he opposed the execs on countless occasions in their wild spending sprees - in particular the Euell signing. On that occasion Hone persuaded Wiseman to vote for the signing and it went ahead despite Crouch's opposition. Crouch's greatest mistake was letting the execs gain control of the PLC board which basically then sidelined him until he negotiated their departure with a pay off.

 

In hindsight Duncan it was buying shares at a premium he was unlikely to recover and switching his support at the eleventh hour to support Wilde's takeover. That was the biggest and most catastrophic turning point in our recent history IMO. I accept some will go back to the formation of the PLC but I believe if managed correctly some form of public or private shared ownership is actually a good thing if open to all within the family of Saints.

[Nineteen Canteen]

You should be pointing your finger really at Mike Wilde for putting together such a situation that total strangers where allowed to hijack the club as they had executive status.

 

Er no, the finger should be pointed to those who allowed Wilde to take control afterall it all happened within a year.

[SaintBobby]

I'm the author of the piece on the "On the Cross" website, which you can read in full here:

 

http://www.southampton-mad.co.uk/news/loadnews.asp?cid=TMNW&id=445050

 

I actually don't hold Crouch anything like as responsible for our present plight as Lowe and Wilde. But I do hold him partly responsible. My key reason for this is - as argued by Tom28 - is that he failed to slash costs in the face of collapsing revenues. At the end of his tenure, we managed to stay up - but were nowhere close to being financially viable. We were spending more than we were bringing in. He was dealt a difficult hand, for sure. But, overall, he played that hand badly.

 

I do think the bucket collection stuff is ridiculous and embarrassing. If the club believes there should be a serious drive to raise cash from fans, it would be far better to have it fronted by Le Tissier, Benali, Rodrigues etc.

 

I don't doubt Leon Crouch's personal devotion to the club, by the way (his payment for the replacement Ted Bates statue was touching, but of course the first statue should never have been so embarrassing in the first place). I just think he shares a bit of the blame for where we are and is starting to make a fool of himself.

 

Btw, I'm also not a "PR plant". The opinions in the article are my own, honest, heartfelt views. Disagree with them by all means. But can we all stop suggesting that anyone who puts forward opinions which don't 100% match one's own is definitionally motivated by some nefarious "agenda"?

Edited 27 April, 2009 by SaintBobby
changed "trim" to "slash" in firts main paragraph

[spain saint]

Marco, I recognise and appreciate the money Crouch has donated in recent weeks to keep the club going.

 

His errors though have been many and not always finace related but IMO errors or judgement.

 

You mention his refusal to support Wilde's spending spree but how did Wilde come to power initially?

 

January we could all see Burley was a spent force by Crouch was telling us that everyone at the club firmly believed we would reach the playoffs. (At the time I didn't realise he mean't the League 1 play offs).

 

He told us in early January 2008 that no players would be let go for financial reasons and at the 11th hour Lee Hoos told us we had released on loan perhaps tow of our largest wage earners. To put Crouch's original quote into context JIm Hone had said the future of teh club was in doubt without significant investment. So as nothing had changed in the interim that was a brave call from Crouch.

 

Did Crouch take 6 weeks to realise that wages to turnover ratio of 81% maybe a tad high?

 

He made managerial appointments/decisions that made Lowe's look good and we seemed to bumble through until alledgedly a client of Chris McMenemy's came into view from nowhere? Crouch's decision or Lawrie McMenemy's?

 

No matter how much Crouch surrounds himself with ex-Saints, lets it be known how much he has donated or was willing to give (The £2m fiasco blew up in his face) or joins the rank and file with bucket in hand it does not IMO compensate for his part in the downfall that extends beyond his time as chairman.

 

The radio 5 Live gaff was emabarrassing for everyone.

 

What will Crouch's epitaph be? Investment is likely soon.

 

The man is undeniably a passionate Saints fan but that doesn't mean he is capable of running a highly pressurised and fickle business. What better example do you want when you see who he chose as his closest confidante with regard to football matters, someone whose last involvement in the game pre-dates the Premier league and there can't be many who can argue the culture of the game has changed beyond recognition since then.

 

Leon is donating a huge amount of money but can still cause the club problems as witnessed by his R5 Live interview. The hypothetical question is has he put more in than in has inadvertently taken out through bad decision making and at times amateur PR.

 

You could ask this question about Mr Lowe, but you won't!!!

[spain saint]

I'm the author of the piece on the "On the Cross" website, which you can read in full here:

 

http://www.southampton-mad.co.uk/news/loadnews.asp?cid=TMNW&id=445050

 

I actually don't hold Crouch anything like as responsible for our present plight as Lowe and Wilde. But I do hold him partly responsible. My key reason for this is - as argued by Tom28 - is that he failed to trim costs in the face of collapsing revenues. At the end of his tenure, we managed to stay up - but were nowhere close to being financially viable. We were spending more than we were bringing in. He was dealt a difficult hand, for sure. But, overall, he played that hand badly.

 

I do think the bucket collection stuff is ridiculous and embarrassing. If the club believes there should be a serious drive to raise cash from fans, it would be far better to have it fronted by Le Tissier, Benali, Rodrigues etc.

 

I don't doubt Leon Crouch's personal devotion to the club, by the way (his payment for the replacement Ted Bates statue was touching, but of course the first statue should never have been so embarrassing in the first place). I just think he shares a bit of the blame for where we are and is starting to make a fool of himself.

 

Btw, I'm also not a "PR plant". The opinions in the article are my own, honest, heartfelt views. Disagree with them by all means. But can we all stop suggesting that anyone who puts forward opinions which don't 100% match one's own is definitionally motivated by some nefarious "agenda"?

 

But without Crouch maybe we wouldn't have a club now if all the latest stories about him fundingthe wages before the last match are true?

[up and away]

don't think he had anything to do with Andrew Davies did he?

 

Andrew Davies signing was made permanent under Crouch. How we managed to get rid of Davies is a major surprise, we could even still be paying for him now. What ever good Crouch has done, you can multiply that 10 fold for the damage he created.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Utter nonsense .

 

Leon Crouch has his full share of human weakness no doubt but what he has done to deserve this tirade of vile I have no comprehension . Better surely if we try and avoid descending into character assassination of a decent men and concentrate instead on encouraging every 'well suited' person we can find to come in and save our club from oblivion .

[SaintBobby]

Utter nonsense .

 

Leon Crouch has his full share of human weakness no doubt but what he has done to deserve this tirade of vile I have no comprehension . Better surely if we try and avoid descending into character assassination of a decent men and concentrate instead on encouraging every 'well suited' person we can find to come in and save our club from oblivion .

 

 

I really think he is making an idiot of himself.

 

You don't save a club like Saints by passing round the buckets.

 

It's all very well to applaud anything taht looks remotely well-meaning, but some of it is just idiotic.

[Window Cleaner]

I really think he is making an idiot of himself.

 

You don't save a club like Saints by passing round the buckets.

 

It's all very well to applaud anything taht looks remotely well-meaning, but some of it is just idiotic.

 

I still don't understand where the gate money has gone and why the buckets and donations are paying the players. It's as if the admins kept the gate money and the rest was paid for by donations and the like.

I assumed that the buckets and donations were for when we have no home games,not straight away.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

I really think he is making an idiot of himself.

 

You don't save a club like Saints by passing round the buckets.

 

It's all very well to applaud anything taht looks remotely well-meaning, but some of it is just idiotic.

 

Are you arguing that LC should have made no effort to raise money and just sat back and done nothing ?

 

If so this forum would be overflowing with 'Where is Crouch in our hour of need' threads - he really can't win can he ?

[up and away]

I am no fan of Crouch while he was Chairman because he made some mistakes but I do think you are unfair here. He told me himself that he opposed the execs on countless occasions in their wild spending sprees - in particular the Euell signing. On that occasion Hone persuaded Wiseman to vote for the signing and it went ahead despite Crouch's opposition. Crouch's greatest mistake was letting the execs gain control of the PLC board which basically then sidelined him until he negotiated their departure with a pay off.

 

So Crouch opposed the Euell signing? Then 3 months later goes and approves greater expenditure in salary for Andrew Davies. Don't you see a little problem here? If Crouch was that worried about the salaries, how on earth can he of approved signing Davies permanently? The truth would be closer that he did not rate Euell, which is fair enough. But there is absolutely no sign that Crouch was serious about getting any costs under control.

 

Just explain to me what Crouch meant when he made this statement subsequent to being removed from the football board.

 

"I am gutted it has come to this. I have spent the last nine months working tirelessly for this club representing the fans, but I have been a thorn in their (the executive board members) side.

"I opposed the mass exodus of staff at the club, we are losing too many goodpeople. I knew it would be a real battle and it has been. I am devastated. I have spent the last 18 months battling these people."

 

 

 

What Crouch did was to create a a poisoned atmosphere where all parties were canceled out and no one left with influence. Anyone with just limited intelligence could see the need to keep Wilde on side, however he fooked up. Just go back through the Echo and look at all the stupidity he has come out with.

• The blabbing regarding the supposed Paul Allen.
  
• The statement that Saints were not in financial difficulties.
  
• The inference that the early Walcott settlement was not true.
  
• The trick with the fishing rod and £2M note attached.
  
• The sitting on his hands waiting for Fulthorpe.
  

[um pahars]

You want research?

 

When good ol' Crouchy was in charge, our revenue dropped from 23.3 million to 14.9 million. That was NOT his fault - that was a combination of dwindling attendances, loss of sponsorship deals and I think parachute payments ending (although I haven't been able to verify that). However, as Chairman, it was his RESPONSIBILITY to take note of this and reduce our costs in line with that revenue reduction.

 

In the period that revenue dropped from 23.3 million to 14.9 million, what happened to our costs? Cost of Sales went from 21.5 million to 22.5 million.

 

He acted irresponsibly and gambled on the future of the club my INCREASING COSTS (wages/player purchases) in the hope that the additional expenditure would translate to success on the pitch, and result in promotion and the additional revenue that brings.

 

Under Crouch we managed to lose £4.9m after a £12.7m profit on player disposals. He was running a player/coach wage bill of 81%.

 

Now, these numbers are ALL fact and I urge anyone who disagrees with these facts to check out the Annual Report.

 

One HUGE MASSIVE mistake in your post above is the timing of who was in control of the purse strings and who was ruling the roost during this period.

 

From the moment that Wilde was booted out of the Club midway through the second parachute season the Club was effectuvely run by Jim Hone who was given his power with the support of Hoos, Jones and Dulieu who also held the casting vote, as there was only 4 Non Execs lined up against him (Trant, Crouch, Wiseman & Hunt).

 

This situation became even more entrenched with the resignation of Hunt and the appointment of Oldknow to the PLC board, giving Hone a free reign.

 

So when the parachute payments came to an end and Plan B should have been implemented, Hone was making all the calls on expenditure, and certainly not Crouch.

 

When Hone and co were finally booted out in December 2007 our overdraft had already risen to £6m.

 

So maybe you would like to edit your post, because although you can obviously read the accounts, you do need to line it up with who was in control of the PLC purse strings for it to be credible.

[SaintBobby]

Are you arguing that LC should have made no effort to raise money and just sat back and done nothing ?

 

If so this forum would be overflowing with 'Where is Crouch in our hour of need' threads - he really can't win can he ?

 

I think he probably should have - or at least acted ratehr more quietly.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

So Crouch opposed the Euell signing? Then 3 months later goes and approves greater expenditure in salary for Andrew Davies. Don't you see a little problem here? If Crouch was that worried about the salaries, how on earth can he of approved signing Davies permanently? The truth would be closer that he did not rate Euell, which is fair enough. But there is absolutely no sign that Crouch was serious about getting any costs under control.

 

 

Your recall seems curiously selective , was it not Leon Crouch who authorised the loan transfers of Skacel & Rasiak in January 08 ?

[um pahars]

Your recall seems curiously selective , was it not Leon Crouch who authorised the loan transfers of Skacel & Rasiak in January 08 ?

 

I wouldn't bother with him. His analysis is so biased it's unbelievable.

 

Although the Execs were clearly in charge when Plan B was postponed he still tries to blame Crouch for what he "might have done" and fails to apply the same criteria to the Execs who he claims "played it like a straight bat".

[eurosaint]

Assuming we have independent new owners soon, I suggest that he is given a permanent seat in the directors box and afforded courtesy (he deserves that for his donations and good intentions) beyond that I would hope that he has no direct involvement in the running of the club !

[eurosaint]

I meant 200£ of course.

 

10£ is 5% of 200£

50000£ is 2.5% of 2M£

 

Don't worry, I was only taking the p*ss, hence the

[SOTONS EAST SIDE]

Having been a Saints supporter for some 60 years I think this posting by "Sid" is the biggest load of Ballacks I have read on this site for many a long a day. Whilst I think that new owners with none of the previous board room chumps is preferable, to slag off Crouch like this is totally out of order.

 

Crouch may not be everyones cuppa, but there is no denying his love and enthusiasm for all things Southampton FC. Crouch was only chairman for a few very difficult months and whilst I will agree mistakes were made he still achieved the correct end to the season by us staying up on the final day.

 

Whilst you are launching this attack on Crouch you seem to have forgotten it was the Lowe/Wilde combination that forcefully removed a blossoming partnership of Crouch and Pearson and sent us spiraling to the position we find ourselves in today. Personally I am 110% sure that had Crouch been left at the club with Pearson in the managers chair WE WOULD NOT NOW BE A DIVISION ONE CLUB.

I just love how the Lowe/Wilde-lovers

cain Crouch for the Dodd/Gorman ****-up, but dont show the same enthusiasm for Lowe's appointment of JP.And how many games did he ****-up, and how close to relegation did he take us while he was here! Oh yeah we are relegated!

Edited 27 April, 2009 by SOTONS EAST SIDE

[Crouchie's Lawyer]

I love stories like these. The thing which makes me love thim is the line about Crouch spending too much money and getting the club into even more financial difficulty. His spending was out of control etc.

I personally would love to see how people come to that conclusion. How they came up with it being Crouch who spent that money.

 

Because the reality is he was Chairman for 4 months. In those 4 months he appointed a manager on LESS money then the manager was on when he took the job. Got COMPENSATION for that manager. He loaned out supposedly the TWO HIGHEST wage earners at the club. Put money from his own pocket into the club to help with certain peoples wages and the final nail in the coffin had backing from Barclays for the following season. Add to that he was not on a salary unlike two others we know.

Now if he was someone who was "out of control" would a bank support him knowing at that time how bad the books were? Obviously not.

 

My view is people need to let it go.

Crouch put Dodd and Gorman in the position of Caretaker managers. Nobody was to know they would go on to feck up. Dodd was/is a Saints legend and Gorman has experience of being assistant manager at National level. That is slightly different from appointing Stuart Gray or Steve Wiggly.

If it had turned out fine people would not have given a ****.

But when it went wrong he rectified his decision and replaced them. With the guy now considered one of the top prospects for management in the country. But of course the bashers don't want to mention those things do they.

Crouch lost £1.6m when Saints went into admin.

The guy is trying to get cash together to keep the club going. He is supported by a lot of the old legends in doing this. If he can use his contacts and profile in gaining money which keeps us going if even for just 1 more week then whats the problem?

 

Crouch has lost a lot of money in trying to help this club. This time last year you had idiots saying the same ******** they are saying now and this thread is full of them. Lowe and Wilde would save the club remember? They would be bringing in investment with them because they wouldn't return otherwise remember? And all the rest of the crap people tried to justify their view of bringing Lowe back.

Roll on 12 months and here we are. The same idiots saying the same stupid stuff but this time having a go at him carrying a bucket.....

 

People should just tell it like it is, say you dislike Crouch because you dislike Crouch nothing more nothing less. Don't make it out he made these financial errors that put us where we are because that is not true. When he and Wilde were in together Crouch was one of few to go against Wildes spending spree, Wilde lied and said he had the money coming in.

But hey it's all Crouch's fault. The one thing i do know about Leon is that he won't give a **** what people think he lookslike holding a bucket. He cares more about this club then most of you do by the looks of it.

 

1) Top post

 

2) WTF is the original poster doing with the space bar?! Was he intentionally whacking multiple spaces inbetween each paragraph to gain attention?!

[SOTONS EAST SIDE]

In hindsight Duncan it was buying shares at a premium he was unlikely to recover and switching his support at the eleventh hour to support Wilde's takeover. That was the biggest and most catastrophic turning point in our recent history IMO. I accept some will go back to the formation of the PLC but I believe if managed correctly some form of public or private shared ownership is actually a good thing if open to all within the family of Saints.

Lets get things sraight once and for all on this point of Crouch's backing of Wilde! This was only done after Leon had a meeting with Lowe to sound out what Lowes plans were, and found out he had no plans to change anything at all!

 

Thats why Leon switched to Wilde, because he knew a change was needed to the way the club was being run.

 

We were all fooled by "THE LIAR WILDE" !!

 

Just get over it!

 

As for Lowe's epitaph: It reads , got in to football with a few dishonest friends to make lots of money(and boy did i), fleeced it of lots of £'s(with chums Cowan, Askam &CO) by running it like "POUNDLAND" cheap and cheerful which got them relegated (costing them even more £'s) and still fleeced it and its fan's. Sorry they dont have fans , just customers! Got kicked out! Got back in with his new significant other (Wilde) fleeced them again, got them relegated again with two dutch cheese brothers Gouda and Edam playing "Total footall" with "Total youth" which = TOTAL CRAP! and left rubbing salt in by (hope not) putting the club out of buisness!And finally Money, i dont bring money in , i just take it out!

What fine epitaph!!!

Edited 27 April, 2009 by SOTONS EAST SIDE

[up and away]

Originally Posted by up and away

So Crouch opposed the Euell signing? Then 3 months later goes and approves greater expenditure in salary for Andrew Davies. Don't you see a little problem here? If Crouch was that worried about the salaries, how on earth can he of approved signing Davies permanently? The truth would be closer that he did not rate Euell, which is fair enough. But there is absolutely no sign that Crouch was serious about getting any costs under control.

 

Your recall seems curiously selective , was it not Leon Crouch who authorised the loan transfers of Skacel & Rasiak in January 08 ?

 

Those the ones that we were not going to sell a week earlier? So you put out players on loan with one hand, then take on players on loan in another? One being the highest salary at St Mary's!

 

The simple fact is that salaries were at their highest of 81% of revenue, how exactly do you square that?

[(not THE) Kevin Moore]

I couldn't care less who made what investment or who made what mistake or who signed who on a ridiculous contract. I want rid of anyone associated with the complete farce this club has become in the last few years and Crouch must take his fair share of the 'he said, she said' blame game that has proved so divisive recently.

 

I want the new chairman to be one of two things:

 

A) a figure who sits in the background and keeps his mouth shut, letting the football team manager have control of footballing matters and the like.

 

or

 

B) if we are to have a chairman who wants to be a figure head for the club then can we not have someone who is versed in PR, who is a logical, reasoned and respected personality.

 

IMHO Crouch is neither of the above and whilst he is to be applauded for his passion and for getting stuck in to raise money, neither of these aspect necessarily make him a good chairman.

[um pahars]

Those the ones that we were not going to sell a week earlier? So you put out players on loan with one hand, then take on players on loan in another? One being the highest salary at St Mary's!

 

The simple fact is that salaries were at their highest of 81% of revenue, how exactly do you square that?

 

By looking at who was in charge when the parachute payments fell away and who failed to implement Plan B (i.e. Hone). Then looking at the answer Jones provided at the AGM with regards it being a blip/timing issue.

 

Crouch does need to accept his share of the blame for certain things (and personally, whilst I admire his deep pockets at the moment, I do think he should take a back seat), but blaming him for the failings of the summer of 2007 and increasing the wage bill nstead of reducing it is not one of them as he was powerless to do anything about it in the short term.

[sidthesquid]

I just love how the Lowe/Wilde-lovers

cain Crouch for the Dodd/Gorman ****-up, but dont show the same enthusiasm for Lowe's appointment of JP.And how many games did he ****-up, and how close to relegation did he take us while he was here! Oh yeah we are relegated!

 

I think the point is - no-one is saying anything good about Lowe & Wilde, they messed up & hopefully they are gone for good. Crouch is still being supported on here by those who fall for his 'I'm a true fan, put a fiver in the bucket' routine. He is inextricably linked with the disaster that has overtaken us, and while I agree that maybe a seat in the directors' box and a pat on the back for his endeavours is the least he deserves, he should NEVER have anything to do wqith the decision making at board level again

[saintinlondon]

do we know for sure that crouch has put any real money in? not saying he has nt just dont know where the claims come from.

[Hyde and Seek]

For what Its worth I have been in the financial sector for several years. I have seen several companies put into liquidation as a result of poor financial decisions and in almost every situation it has been as a result of owners who fail to admit their mistakes. Greed appears to obsure their minds so to attend a liquidation meeting can be a painful experience. In todays society it it seems that it is wrong to admit failure. At least Leon Crouch has had the good grace to be make positive overtures to the fans. I rest my case and perhaps foolhardy look forward to a more transparent Board of Directors who can unite the fans and get us back to the promised land. In conclusion Leon may have made mistakes but IMHO he has tried to make amends. Pity RL and MW were not on the pitch on Saturday to help out.

[Gemmel]

Pity RL and MW were not on the pitch on Saturday to help out.

 

I agree with yor sentiments regarding Crouch, but think we would be starting with minus 100 points if RL and wilde were on the pitch

 

Plus the cost of two ambulances, might have seen us go under

[Saint in Paradise]

IMHO Mr Crouch made a mistake or two BUT he corrected them as soon as he realised them, unlike some others.

Who amongst any of us can claim that they never made a mistake ? Mr Crouch should be thanked for everything

he has done and is still doing. I sincerely hope that History treats him with the respect that I feel he deserves.

[Gemmel]

IMHO Mr Crouch made a mistake or two BUT he corrected them as soon as he realised them, unlike some others.

Who amongst any of us can claim that they never made a mistake ? Mr Crouch should be thanked for everything

he has done and is still doing. I sincerely hope that History treats him with the respect that I feel he deserves.

 

Couldnt agree more....... Top post

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Those the ones that we were not going to sell a week earlier? So you put out players on loan with one hand, then take on players on loan in another? One being the highest salary at St Mary's!

 

The simple fact is that salaries were at their highest of 81% of revenue, how exactly do you square that?

 

How do I square that ? - quite easily really .

 

As UP has so succinctly pointed out the wage bill grew to such unsustainable proportions while SFC was under the control of previous regime(s) not while Crouch was Chairman . I find it disappointing when the basic facts of the matter are so blatantly ignored .

 

The latter stages of the 07/08 season saw us in serious danger of relegation and our new manager (Nigel Pearson) quite reasonably asked for temporary replacements for injured squad members , are you seriously telling me you didn't approve of the loan transfers of Richard Wright when we had all our keepers simultaneously out injured or Chris Lucketti when we lost Andrew Davis ? :confused:

 

Fair minded Saints fans will agree players such as Wright , Lucketti and Perry were instrumental in keeping us up last season so in my view any temporary adverse impact on the wage bill can be easily justified as cost effective . Perhaps you would have preferred we'd been relegated 12 months ago in order to save a relatively small amount of money - if so I'm prepared to bet you'd be in a minority of one on here if you do .

 

If you don't like Leon Crouch for some reason then I've no problem with any reasoned and fair criticism based on his actual record , bias on the other hand I just find egregious .

Edited 29 April, 2009 by CHAPEL END CHARLIE
My terrible spelling

[Windmill Arm 2]

You are taking out of you backside mate. Leon crocuh has bankrolled this club and not taken a penny. How you can say this is beyond me. Matty was wrong about that as he doesnt know what really happened. Crouch was not incharge and didnt have a say when the execs made those terrible decisions. When he was incharge he cut costs and appointed pearson, a good manager. wAKE UP MATE.

 

I agree with him, this club needs a clean sweep, we need to get rid of the old and bring in new faces with new ideas, and more importantly AMBITION. I am sick of the lot of em.

[um pahars]

How do I square that ? - quite easily really .

 

As UP has so succinctly pointed out the wage bill grew to such unsustainable proportions while SFC was under the control of previous regime(s) not while Crouch was Chairman . I find it disappointing when the basic facts of the matter are so blatantly ignored .

 

The latter stages of the 07/08 season saw us in serious danger of relegation and our new manager (Nigel Pearson) quite reasonably asked for temporary replacements for injured squad members , are you seriously telling me you didn't approve of the loan transfers of Richard Wright when we had all our keepers simultaneously out injured or Chris Lucketti when we lost Andrew Davis ? :confused:

 

Fair minded Saints fans will agree players such as Wright , Lucketti and Perry we instrumental in keeping us up last season so in my view any temporary adverse impact on the wage bill can be easily justified as cost effective . Perhaps you would have preferred we'd been relegated 12 months ago in order to save a relatively small amount of money - if so I'm prepared to bet you'd be in a minority of one on here if you do .

 

If you don't like Leon Crouch for some reason then I've no problem with any reasoned and fair critism based on his accual record , bias on the other hand I just find egregious .

 

That's far too sensible a post!!!!!!!

 

I also await Tom28's reply, because his ignorance of where the power lay in that period is astounding (I'm awaiting the retort of, "Well he Football Club Chairman").

[Wes Tender]

A fair summary of my feelings towards Mr Crouch - part of the problem, NOT part of the solution

 

It is almost impossible to quantify how bad the last season has been. Even worse than the season that preceded it. At best, Saints will start League One next year bottom of the table at a score of -10. At worst, we may be "Wimbledoned".

 

 

The people to blame, of course, are those who have managed the club to this position. Not poor Mark Wotte- who is an excellent technical coach, and has the guts to look the fans in the eye.

 

 

If this year has been like watching a car smash in slow motion, then we need to retrieve some scrap metal from the wreckage.

 

 

But the most salient point I can make is that Leon Crouch must be removed immediately from any sort of decision-making or public role at Southampton Football Club.

 

He must be ruled out entirely as the next Chairman and must have the apparent platform granted to him in the club's programme and access to corporate hospitality guests swiftly and permanently removed.

 

 

I have no doubt that Mr. Crouch is a devout Saints fan. And some elements of the fan-base may even have encouraged his absurd actions. But you can't continue to trade on the fact that you are a walking-talking human being whose only key attribute is that you are NOT Rupert Lowe.

 

 

He is now wandering around as a Walter Mitty character.

 

 

Turning up at the end of the game in the hospitality suites - with Nick Holmes and Mark Dennis in tow - wielding buckets to "save our club" is a sign of how inappropriate and embarrassing Mr Crouch has become

 

 

This is not about bucket collections (you'd need to fill about 5,000 buckets with tenners just to pay off the obscene financial mismanagement of Crouch's chairmanship).

 

At present market rates, if you're willing to donate a spare kidney, this will pay Bradley Wright -Phillips's salary for a week.

 

We're beyond that now.

 

 

There's still something of a semblance of a team on the pitch. But God save us from all the people who have overseen this great club's downfall. When Matt Le Tissier names you in the Times as one of the guilty men (that's you...Lowe, Wilde and Crouch), please just go away.

 

 

If we are going to get out of League One, it will be because smarter and brighter people won't put up with the insane antics of the likes of Messrs Crouch and Lowe.

 

 

It's time for a major change. And if you were part of the farcical, unedifying spectacle that brought us to our knees, then your are part of the problem. Not part of the solution.

 

I'm talking about you, Leon Crouch.

 

Please just leave now, with whatever dignity you can still muster.

 

 

What would be really nice, would be you getting a bit of perspective. You go ranting on full steam ahead full of bile and vitriol against Crouch who was only in charge for a relatively short time and yet you mention Lowe and Wilde just once and Askham not at all.

 

Nobody is going to take a one sided rant like this seriously and true to form, other Lowe apologists like Manji pile in with their own lopsided rewriting of history even before events are played out.

 

Yes, it would be nice to get rid of the whole lot of them, but let nobody be in no doubt that the entire chain of events was set in motion by Askham and his old board cronies and the journey towards the buffers was made mainly with Lowe's hands on the throttle lever. I thought that a railway analogy was appropriate as he is so fond of trains.

 

Oh, and by the way, your opinion that Wotte is an excellent technical coach, highlights your lack of judgement generally.

[SaintBobby]

What would be really nice, would be you getting a bit of perspective. You go ranting on full steam ahead full of bile and vitriol against Crouch who was only in charge for a relatively short time and yet you mention Lowe and Wilde just once and Askham not at all.

 

Nobody is going to take a one sided rant like this seriously and true to form, other Lowe apologists like Manji pile in with their own lopsided rewriting of history even before events are played out.

 

Yes, it would be nice to get rid of the whole lot of them, but let nobody be in no doubt that the entire chain of events was set in motion by Askham and his old board cronies and the journey towards the buffers was made mainly with Lowe's hands on the throttle lever. I thought that a railway analogy was appropriate as he is so fond of trains.

 

Oh, and by the way, your opinion that Wotte is an excellent technical coach, highlights your lack of judgement generally.

 

Just to reiterate again - I'm the original poster, effectively - sidthesquid merely pasted my article in (not asserting any intellectual copyright stuff, am merely pointing this out for the record).

 

Please understand that it is a conclusion to a match report - at a match where Crouch was present both in person and in the programme (e.g. very publicly).

 

I do hold Lowe and Wilde considerably MORE responsible for our present plight, but I don't think anything and everything that is written needs to be in some strict ration of, say, ten criticisms of Lowe and Wilde for every one of Crouch. Lowe and Wilde are (I hope) history. By way of analogy, I didn't say that McGoldrick's penalty miss on Saturday was bad, but then spend a whole paragraph on how Wotton's miss against Watford earlier this season was even worse.

 

I think Crouch needs to shoulder some of the blame for the finances of the club getting out of control over the past few years, which is ultimately what has brought us to this sorry state of affairs. In retrospect, one might even argue it would have been better to have got relegated last year than to have reached this situation, but I wouldn't want to pursue that argument too vigorously and, of course, no one could possibly have known that at the time.

 

Those who have been in charge of the club oversaw a ballooning wage bill for under-performing players. A complete break with the past is therefore necessary. I also think that Crouch's present behaviour is unedifying, however well-intentioned.

[docker-p]

A fair summary of my feelings towards Mr Crouch - part of the problem, NOT part of the solution

 

It is almost impossible to quantify how bad the last season has been. Even worse than the season that preceded it. At best, Saints will start League One next year bottom of the table at a score of -10. At worst, we may be "Wimbledoned".

 

 

The people to blame, of course, are those who have managed the club to this position. Not poor Mark Wotte- who is an excellent technical coach, and has the guts to look the fans in the eye.

 

 

If this year has been like watching a car smash in slow motion, then we need to retrieve some scrap metal from the wreckage.

 

 

But the most salient point I can make is that Leon Crouch must be removed immediately from any sort of decision-making or public role at Southampton Football Club.

 

He must be ruled out entirely as the next Chairman and must have the apparent platform granted to him in the club's programme and access to corporate hospitality guests swiftly and permanently removed.

 

 

I have no doubt that Mr. Crouch is a devout Saints fan. And some elements of the fan-base may even have encouraged his absurd actions. But you can't continue to trade on the fact that you are a walking-talking human being whose only key attribute is that you are NOT Rupert Lowe.

 

 

He is now wandering around as a Walter Mitty character.

 

 

Turning up at the end of the game in the hospitality suites - with Nick Holmes and Mark Dennis in tow - wielding buckets to "save our club" is a sign of how inappropriate and embarrassing Mr Crouch has become

 

 

This is not about bucket collections (you'd need to fill about 5,000 buckets with tenners just to pay off the obscene financial mismanagement of Crouch's chairmanship).

 

At present market rates, if you're willing to donate a spare kidney, this will pay Bradley Wright -Phillips's salary for a week.

 

We're beyond that now.

 

 

There's still something of a semblance of a team on the pitch. But God save us from all the people who have overseen this great club's downfall. When Matt Le Tissier names you in the Times as one of the guilty men (that's you...Lowe, Wilde and Crouch), please just go away.

 

 

If we are going to get out of League One, it will be because smarter and brighter people won't put up with the insane antics of the likes of Messrs Crouch and Lowe.

 

 

It's time for a major change. And if you were part of the farcical, unedifying spectacle that brought us to our knees, then your are part of the problem. Not part of the solution.

 

I'm talking about you, Leon Crouch.

 

Please just leave now, with whatever dignity you can still muster.

 

You could pen a few best sellers for Mills & Boom with toss like that.

What a prat.

[CB Fry]

A fair summary of my feelings towards Mr Crouch - part of the problem, NOT part of the solution

 

It is almost impossible to quantify how bad the last season has been. Even worse than the season that preceded it. At best, Saints will start League One next year bottom of the table at a score of -10. At worst, we may be "Wimbledoned".

 

 

The people to blame, of course, are those who have managed the club to this position. Not poor Mark Wotte- who is an excellent technical coach, and has the guts to look the fans in the eye.

 

 

If this year has been like watching a car smash in slow motion, then we need to retrieve some scrap metal from the wreckage.

 

 

But the most salient point I can make is that Leon Crouch must be removed immediately from any sort of decision-making or public role at Southampton Football Club.

 

He must be ruled out entirely as the next Chairman and must have the apparent platform granted to him in the club's programme and access to corporate hospitality guests swiftly and permanently removed.

 

 

I have no doubt that Mr. Crouch is a devout Saints fan. And some elements of the fan-base may even have encouraged his absurd actions. But you can't continue to trade on the fact that you are a walking-talking human being whose only key attribute is that you are NOT Rupert Lowe.

 

 

He is now wandering around as a Walter Mitty character.

 

 

Turning up at the end of the game in the hospitality suites - with Nick Holmes and Mark Dennis in tow - wielding buckets to "save our club" is a sign of how inappropriate and embarrassing Mr Crouch has become

 

 

This is not about bucket collections (you'd need to fill about 5,000 buckets with tenners just to pay off the obscene financial mismanagement of Crouch's chairmanship).

 

At present market rates, if you're willing to donate a spare kidney, this will pay Bradley Wright -Phillips's salary for a week.

 

We're beyond that now.

 

 

There's still something of a semblance of a team on the pitch. But God save us from all the people who have overseen this great club's downfall. When Matt Le Tissier names you in the Times as one of the guilty men (that's you...Lowe, Wilde and Crouch), please just go away.

 

 

If we are going to get out of League One, it will be because smarter and brighter people won't put up with the insane antics of the likes of Messrs Crouch and Lowe.

 

 

It's time for a major change. And if you were part of the farcical, unedifying spectacle that brought us to our knees, then your are part of the problem. Not part of the solution.

 

I'm talking about you, Leon Crouch.

 

Please just leave now, with whatever dignity you can still muster.

 

 

Quite a nice read, but it does read like a CB Fry tribute act.

 

I came up with a line about selling kidneys to pay BWP's wages on here about two weeks ago.

 

But who's counting?

 

Anyway, Crouch is almost certainly not part of the long term solution, his cringworthy buffoonery on Five Live the other day confirming this.

 

Just a clean sweep of the lot of them would be fine, thanks.