Appreciate the great respect Willo, even if you disagree with my view.
I hope that watching future Palace games under Hodgson on TV will not lead to you switching off or changing channels in anger and desperation.

Some of us on here fully understand this to be the case. Do we like it ? - no, at least I don't. But I can comprehend the reasons behind it. People abuse Hodgson for doing his job. Which is why I and others on here defend him.

Yes, the football is dull. But it does enough to keep us in the Premier League until such time as the club is either willing or able to invest in improving the squad and looking beyond a 12 month cycle.

I love your Hungerford story but as you rightly point out, bears no comparison to the way that a Premier League club is run. And therefore your comment about putting Palace to shames is totally - as is that whole piece - pointless. And without pissing on those particular chips, once the money goes out of that club, as happens in so many non-league clubs, they will probably be back in the mire again.

These figures, whilst accurate as far as they go, don't tell the story regarding Hodgsons performance at all.

The bulk of the transfer fees and wages spent building this squad were all from before Hodgson arrived. After that the only signings for a fee were Kouyaté, Sorloth, Ayew and McCarthy until this summer when we bought Eze and then Butland. Everyone else has been a free transfer. Hodgson may have inherited a squad comprising the 15th biggest spend on fees over a five year period, but he himself has only had the benefit of a small part of even that comparatively limited spending.

The wage bill is also a red herring, as we all agree that most of the big earners at present offer poor value for money, and that many should be written off as such this summer. Few people have Sakho, Wickham, Meyer, Kelly, Hennessey or even Dann or PVA in their first choice XIs (Roy certainly doesn't), and without them the wage bill is nothing like the 9th highest. That supports a point made frequently elsewhere that I appreciate you don't fully agree with - that whatever we happen to pay them, this isn't a very good group of players compared to everyone else's. The ninth highest wage bill doesn't equate to the manager working with ninth best set of players at all. Ours are plainly nowhere near that good.

I've no problem with Roy being replaced if, and only if, the new manager is an improvement. The concern I have about so many Roy-out posts is that they seem not to recognise how difficult it's going to be to achieve that. With respect I don't think your method of measuring what constitutes adequate performance is a fair or reasonable one.

These figures, whilst accurate as far as they go, don't tell the story regarding Hodgsons performance at all.

The bulk of the transfer fees and wages spent building this squad were all from before Hodgson arrived. After that the only signings for a fee were Kouyaté, Sorloth, Ayew and McCarthy until this summer when we bought Eze and then Butland. Everyone else has been a free transfer. Hodgson may have inherited a squad comprising the 15th biggest spend on fees over a five year period, but he himself has only had the benefit of a small part of even that comparatively limited spending.

The wage bill is also a red herring, as we all agree that most of the big earners at present offer poor value for money, and that many should be written off as such this summer. Few people have Sakho, Wickham, Meyer, Kelly, Hennessey or even Dann or PVA in their first choice XIs (Roy certainly doesn't), and without them the wage bill is nothing like the 9th highest. That supports a point made frequently elsewhere that I appreciate you don't fully agree with - that whatever we happen to pay them, this isn't a very good group of players compared to everyone else's. The ninth highest wage bill doesn't equate to the manager working with ninth best set of players at all. Ours are plainly nowhere near that good.

I've no problem with Roy being replaced if, and only if, the new manager is an improvement. The concern I have about so many Roy-out posts is that they seem not to recognise how difficult it's going to be to achieve that. With respect I don't think your method of measuring what constitutes adequate performance is a fair or reasonable one.

Is it a red herring because they are genuinely decent players who don’t play that decent any more, or because we paid them too much when they first arrived and they were never really worth those wages?