I think it was Parish who said something along the lines of we'd only buy the right player for the right price and they wouldn't buy players for the sake of it.

That sounds great in principal but it may have also been one of the factors that has left us with such an imbalanced squad. As has already been pointed out with have Olise, Ebiowei and Rak-Sakyi who all could fill the same position. Yet we have two old right backs, one left back and only 2 forwards.

For me we need to highlight the positions where we are incredibly weak and ensure that we get something in for those positions. Whether it be first, second or third choice. Providing we stay up we will need a younger right back, we will need another left back, we will need another striker, we will need another midfielder when Lokonga goes back on loan.

Ensure that happens. It puts pressure on the player currently in that position to perform and means we are not putting players in positions they shouldn't be in.

We made mistakes in our early Premier League campaigns since we came up but we did seem to have options in each position.

Currently we have half a team that is as good as anyone outside the top 7, but 3 positions where we probably have the worst options in the entire league.

I'm not sure how people form such firm views on the club's performance in the transfer market. We only see the deals that come off, and none of those that don't. We never know who the club went in for, what they offered, how hard they worked on deals, or why they didn't come off.

People sometimes talk as if buying players is like buying your shopping; you simply decide what you want, find it, then pay the price. I always think it's far more similar to trying to get a really good job; you are one of a number of suitable, interested candidates, you apply along with several others, do your best but must appreciate that someone else might succeed ahead of you. Afterwards, it makes sense to ask yourself if you could have done more, and what if anything to do better next time, but have to accept that it was never in your control to begin with. Ultimately you just have to keep trying, and may have to compromise at times.

Then there's the money issue for Palace. It is a matter of recorded fact that we have one of the smaller budgets in the league, that we've generally spent all that we can on players, and that it gets harder rather than easier every year because the teams above us get more money from league placing, TV, commercial, tickets, hospitality etc than we do.

The idea that Parish or Freedman have 'failed' because we haven't got a back up left back, or because our strikers are s*** (which they certainly are) is based on totally unreasonable and unrealistic expectations.

It's f***ing Palace, not Real Madrid.

Edited by TheBigToePunt (24 Mar 2023 9.45am)

To a degree I think you are right. We do have a limited budget, but didn't someone put on here yesterday we are the 26th richest club in the world.

We should be able to get a left back from somewhere and a right back and another forward. For a team in its 10th season in the premier league we should not be relying on Schlupp in midfield and Ward/Clyne as our right backs.

Are there limitations of course. But lets not use them as an excuse, that we can have 3 positions out of 11 that are inadequate. That's poor planning/recruitment. We need to ensure we can have adequate cover in each position within our budget.

That's my point really, why would we presume that our budget can stretch to adequate (i.e at least mid table premier league quality) cover in each position? I don't think anyone outside of the big clubs ever has that.

I think the idea that Palace are the 26th richest club in the world comes from an old survey that showed us to have a wage bill in the top 25 teams worldwide at one point. That was at a specific point when we had Sakho, benteke, Zaha all on circa £100k a week, plus a good few like Meyer and PvA on big dough too. It couldn't be sustained, and prevented the club spending anything on new players during Roy's time.

Being a premier league club does of course mean you have a bigger income than most clubs in the world, apart from the big European sides, and (crucially) most of all of the other premier league clubs. The one's we compete with in the market in other words.

The idea that we have failed to get a left back, or a decent forward, would make perfect sense if nobody else was interested in signing the players that might be good enough, but the opposite is true.

When Brentford are in their tenth consecutive season in the top flight, I might be a bit more inclined to agree with those that sing their praises.

Brighton have done well recently, but they sign an awful lot of s***e that doesn't make the grade in pursuit of those that do, then they have to sell to balance the books. I'm not saying they haven't done well, but they haven't got a model I would rush to copy either.

Nobody out there has a reliable method that we are failing to implement.

I would say that both Brentford and Brighton have a model we should aspire to. Both have squads busting with talent, and non of it cost much. Its having the right people and the right plan and sticking to it.

Yeah of course Brighton have signed some duffs. But most of their signings are relatively low cost and so they can afford for a few not to work.

And the fact that you don't rate their model is insane and also means you have no real understanding of how brilliant it is.