Nope, I said in the threat that I can't comment on where I got that information. I did say it was something I was hearing not that it was fact.

If you know anything about my social media, blog, etc then you'll know I rarely comment on rumours. I am not a fan of click bait articles and the like.

I didn't make a post or comment on it in a vid/pod. It would be a cheap and easy way to get visits. That was why I only made a tweet.

As you may have noticed I am someone who likes to explain as full as possible when answering.

They do it in Italy all the time. Some clubs have 2 or more managers on 'gardening leave' and regularly bring them back again.

As long as the club is paying the manager this is perfectly acceptable.

I must admit that I smiled when I read the above quote

I don't disagree with what you wrote above. Maybe I should just learn to not comment if I am not prepared to trawl through things to find quotes and whatnot.

If I am the only person you've come across to say what I am saying then I'd say you can't know many Palace fans, which I doubt is true.

Since day 1 when Sam left people were saying it is about transfers and it continued through the summer. It has been debated on here, the BBS, Twitter and Facebook groups.

This led to someone dreaming up the rumour that he left because he had a close friend die in the Manchester bombing. This is completely untrue yet people are saying this is a fact and it's why Parish was taken by surprise.

Fact is Allardyce is quoted as saying (talking to Jim White on Talksport) that he decided before the Hull game to leave which makes it strange that he had preliminary talks with Parish about transfers and agreed to "Sakho plus one", which I have not heard elsewhere, just that Parish said "one maybe two" on a US radio interview in June.

One thing I can point you to is one of the talking head ex-pros on Sky's The Debate who echoed what I've been saying, can't remember which one it was but he was on with either Ian Wright or Simon Jordan but it wasn't either of those two who said it.

Furthermore it has been debated on 5 Live, Talksport and other podcasts.

As I said, I can't trawl through everything. I listen to shedloads of podcasts every day on my walks be it the BBC football shows, The Guardian's Football Weekly, The Game, etc.

To expect me go through all media sources to satisfy your curiosity is a little silly when Palace crop up every episode (as we are currently Premier League) but I am happy to submit a list so you can listen to them.

There's certainly been palace fans speculating all kinds of reasons, including, like you say, lack of funds. But I don't recall any taking any comments made by Sam to Jim White or anybody and using those to surmise it must've been because of lack of funds. And certainly not anyone taking comments from a third party on Sam's decision as gospel.

He may have had a change of mind, a change of heart, a pain in the heart, another warning from the doctor because of previous health warnings. Conversations with the wife, family, anything. He may want 6 months off, maybe even 6 months off and 6 months on again. That was my guess at the time, but it's just a guess, and an outcome I've no issue with.

If indeed it was due to 'lack of funds.' What lack of funds are these? £50 mil net spend last season, £30 mil net spend this season. Would e been over £40 mil if it weren't for the fvcking about. More than respectable. About 9th in the wages table with revenue at 14th?
How much more does the club stretch to?

In football management there are those who think there is a bottomless pit of money to spend and can walk away from when the effect runs out and the bad times begin. In commentary there are those who can do so in a studio or paper column and forget all of it till the next 30 minutes in 3 weeks time.

When Sam took the job he knew the size of the club and he knew the days of Bolton, Pompey etc are long gone. FFP has reigned spending to within what's realistic and comparable to those around you. Simplifying it is financial related to, 'lack' of funds, is far too simplistic. I'm not surprised it's been brought into question by the usual football commentary types who couldn't give a fook if we did blow up because of it when the next 25,000 prem max attendance club comes up to take their place and go through the same irresponsible process because they aren't responsible for their finger pointing cr&p again.

There are issues at the club. Putting money on the table isn't in doubt. Forward planning and an experienced head doing so is.

Edited by Rudi Hedman (06 Sep 2017 9.59pm)

COYP

My understanding was the club would have £30m to spend and that in order to not be in a relegation battle again he'd ideally need almost double if Sakho was coming in. It was more about the number of players he wanted to bring in that was a stumbling block. He knew there was about 1/3 of the squad that needed replacing for one reason or another.

For example the senior players who left in the summer (Campbell, Ledley, Flamini, etc.) and £30m wasn't going to adequately replace them and if he could only bring in 2 players to fill 5 or 6 departures it all pointed to a major struggle this season.

I was led to believe he was not happy that Delaney and less so, Speroni were handed new deals over his head. By that I mean he wasn't consulted about it, Parish just went and did it. Sam felt he could have got other squad players in on less wages.

We saw that Allardyce didn't fancy Delaney after the Sunderland game at home and he didn't think he had a future at the club.

Over all he could tell there was no use complaining or fighting to get more money because Parish feels the squad is good enough with the right coaching. Sam felt we got out of jail.

I certainly don't think we should go and spunk the cash all over the place. We saw what you can buy for £10m in January and maybe that is up to £15m this summer but even so I think we need what we need.

Outside the first 11 the squad lacks quality of depth.

Why did we let Ledley go? On the bench for Wales the other night. FdB did let him go, it wasn't Allardyce so it is a mystery. Same for Campbell. Might not be a great striker but he is better than nothing.

On the subject of FFP, last summer Pardew and Parish said they tried everything they could to persuade Bolasie to stay. However, had he not left we could not have afforded to buy Benteke.

Maybe the money we spent in January (which was part summer 2016 and part summer 2017 funds) would have been used which would have meant no bail out money which Sam used.

So, did the board really try to keep Bolasie? If so maybe we should thank him for leaving because otherwise we'd not have had any money to buy players in January 2017.

It seems that we have about £40m to spend each summer, plus proceeds from sales. We spent £11m net (roughly) and just under £40m in January, £10m of which was from this summer. Add the £38m (inc.. loan fees) we're just over but then we sold Mandanda.

Since we've been in the PL it hasn't been how much we've spend but that we've spent it on some pretty poor players who we can't get rid of.