I know none of us want the top monied clubs of the Premier League breaking away into some Euro Super League, but I can’t help thinking it’s heading that way

It wouldn't bother me if it did, a club like ours doesn't belong in the same competition as the big moneybags clubs. At least we wont have to forfeit 12 fixtures every season which is what Roy is doing at the moment

Isn't that Evertons motto?

Apologies, and to Midland Eagle as well, for any obscurity.
By 'existential', I mean an assertion of the will that exceeds expectation. In this case, the expectation is that you can't escape economics. At the end of the season, you are looking, by and large, at a League table that reflects economic advantage. But Chelsea 2 West Brom 5 can't be explained by that. So how to explain it other than by a 'super-human' effort?
So when did Palace last exceed expectation? You can't overcome a technically superior opposition other than by countering that superiority by something different, unusual, unexpected. But in no respect could we even match Chelsea yesterday. As Chris Coleman said, Chelsea 'wanted it more'. How can that be?
Let's imagine that for some reason, we had Klopp or Guardiola managing us for a season. What difference would it make? Ten more points a season? So in that respect Hodgson isn't the problem. What is a problem is that we can still be as outclassed as we were yesterday. We'll never have the money to compete with the big teams, but in the absence of that, we need inspiration from somewhere, and it's in pretty short supply at the moment. My point was simply that many posters, and perhaps the Board, accepts that economic circumstances means we can't do better than hope to escape relegation every year. Really? After eight seasons in the top flight? That we might do better than just that is what, for good or ill, I chose to term Existentialism. With respect, my use of the term is not misplaced. An early poster-The Big Toe Punt?-caught the sense of this very well.

Apologies, and to Midland Eagle as well, for any obscurity.
By 'existential', I mean an assertion of the will that exceeds expectation. In this case, the expectation is that you can't escape economics. At the end of the season, you are looking, by and large, at a League table that reflects economic advantage. But Chelsea 2 West Brom 5 can't be explained by that. So how to explain it other than by a 'super-human' effort?
So when did Palace last exceed expectation? You can't overcome a technically superior opposition other than by countering that superiority by something different, unusual, unexpected. But in no respect could we even match Chelsea yesterday. As Chris Coleman said, Chelsea 'wanted it more'. How can that be?
Let's imagine that for some reason, we had Klopp or Guardiola managing us for a season. What difference would it make? Ten more points a season? So in that respect Hodgson isn't the problem. What is a problem is that we can still be as outclassed as we were yesterday. We'll never have the money to compete with the big teams, but in the absence of that, we need inspiration from somewhere, and it's in pretty short supply at the moment. My point was simply that many posters, and perhaps the Board, accepts that economic circumstances means we can't do better than hope to escape relegation every year. Really? After eight seasons in the top flight? That we might do better than just that is what, for good or ill, I chose to term Existentialism. With respect, my use of the term is not misplaced. An early poster-The Big Toe Punt?-caught the sense of this very well.

Hi Elwiss,
In terms of the feeling that the wealth of a club or their expenditure on better players roughly equates to the league position I agree with you - however I didn't see the Chelsea / WB game or the highlights, (so my thoughts may be complete BS) but when I saw the score my first thought was that Chelsea had probably underestimated WB & we were going to pay the price.

Greetings!

I'm sure you're right. When you look at the gulf in class between Chelsea and WBA it's a result that shouldn't have happened. Chelsea had a man sent off but even so. How often have we struggled against ten man oppositions!
In a way, it's the sort of result that should keep one optimistic because it shows wealth doesn't always win. But of course, over the long term it does. The whole point of my original post was to savour all those things about football that mean results are not always economically determined. An example of the sort of thing I had in mind would be charisma, imagination, belief, commitment, even sheer cussedness. The sort of thing that is exemplified by Marco Bielsa. He's got five players in his current team who were part of a Leeds side that not so long ago was struggling in the Championship. He has simply made them better players in a way that our manager is not capable. How many Palace players has Roy Hodgson improved? I can think of several he hasn't! But this isn't intentionally an anti-Hodgson post. I don't want him sacked, but I don't want his contract renewed either. Posters who are unhappy about my use of 'existential' to describe that sense of being able to exceed economic expectation might consider what Claudio Ranieri achieved with Leicester when they won the Premiership. If ever there was an example of a man who 'changed the world by thinking about it' (pure Sartre) it was he.