I could not agree more it’s not about spending millions it’s about being entertained & last night & Chelsea was excellent despite losing.

My concern is Roy can’t seem to do this against the so called lesser teams.

People say you can’t make changes we’ll look at what Southampton have achieved cause they a manager that accepted his tactics were wrong do changed his team & shape that is what makes a good manager when they find solutions.

I run a business & if sat here & said I don’t have the money compete or have no solutions my business would go under so you have to be willing to be flexible, try new ideas & solutions to improve.

People who support Roy are constantly saying that we need to buy a whole new team. It's much cheaper to get rid of the manager.

I get what your saying but this is the whole problem! If you play more expansively without quality players and huge investment you get torn to pieces, pardew tried it and we were losing games 3-2 5-4 etc I guarantee you the people wanting him out are the same people wanting Roy out. People will never be happy, get someone in who plays attacking football we will be relegated by Christmas with our squad , bUt iT wIll bE enTeRTaINInG or we keep Roy until we have finances to invest and then look to replace with a longer term manager . At this moment , for our sustained period in the premier league, Roy and his football are our only option and I would take prem survival over exciting football any day of the week, I’m sure Stoke, charlton , West Brom , Sunderland fans would agree with me and wish they could turn the clock back

“This is a crisis, a large crisis.... in fact if you have a moment, it’s a 12 storey crisis, magnificent entrance hall, carpeting throughout, 24 hour portage , and an enormous sign on the roof saying “This , is a large crisis” - Edmund Blackadder

That’s about it Jack. Villa, Norwich, Bournemouth, all try to play the right way we are told. Without a miracle all will play lovely to watch football the right way in the Championship. Next season. It only goes to prove you can imitate good to watch football. Doesn’t mean your any good . Certainly not enough to win anything. And if you don’t win anything, then get ready to play lovely football at a lower level, and hope it works this time ., because every team you meet will knock the lovely to watch football out of you. if that’s all you think it takes to actually win anything.

Just nonsense.

We are the least expansive team in the league - no one is saying go completely gun ho, but the idea we can’t do anything but this is so stupid it’s untrue. We’ve played more expansively than this plenty of times ourselves in recent years and not done any worst. We will be the lowest scoring team to survive in the premier league (bar Huddersfield) in the last 7 years, so by very definition there are 5 comparable teams a year who play more expansively than we do now and have stayed up.

As I said above, the Chelsea and united games are clear as day proof that we could approach games differently, with the same squad, if we wanted to.

Yes we lost heavily under Pardew at times, but we also won heavily and often scored more than 2 a game(!!!!!), and reached a bloody cup final - it’s funny when fans try and use that as the yardstick for a bad season.. I’d take that any day over the utter s***e we’ve watched this year.

Accusing everyone who disagrees with you of acting like a teenager whilst writing in alternate capital letters is also quite amusing.

Also you would take pardews reign over this?? That’s complete nonsense , yes the first half of the season and the end of the previous, but after that, we were shipping goals left right and centre , losing games in injury time when we were winning in the 90th minute , also that cup final, we should have won and it was pardews lack of defensive spark that cost us , everyone wanted Pardew gone, with him in charge playing that way we would have been destroyed and relegated if he wasn’t sacked and should have been sacked a lot sooner

“This is a crisis, a large crisis.... in fact if you have a moment, it’s a 12 storey crisis, magnificent entrance hall, carpeting throughout, 24 hour portage , and an enormous sign on the roof saying “This , is a large crisis” - Edmund Blackadder

Try and do it without patronising/insulting people.

I think it’s fairly logical to assume performances of that quality would yield results against worst teams.

So had we played our normal boring tosh, do you think we would have got something out of either game? Was the attacking intent we showed our downfall? I really want to know what you think because I thought our movement and passing totally eclipsed that of the Burnley and Villa matches and we could have only bettered that performance with better finishing.

I have no problem whatsoever about the result given how we played in both the Chelsea and Man Utd matches. They were both entertaining and we should perhaps have got something out of both. However, the problem is we have probably only put in 7 or 8 performances like that all year and the rest of the time we have looked almost disinterested on the pitch.

I also really do not get this notion that we have to play in Roy's normal defensive style otherwise we go down. If we played like we did last night we would IMO finish in a top 10 position. If as we expect, Bournemouth, Norwich and Villa all go down it will be because they are overall the three worst teams in the league, not because they occasionally play some attractive football.

Roy would be backed to the hilt by all Palace fans if he showed a bit of flexibility and guile rather than just doing the same thing and picking the same players week in, week out and then when we are losing, not changing either the manpower on the pitch early enough or the tactics. It is not a weakness as a manger to spot when tactics are not working and immediately implementing an alternative strategy. I would argue the ability to do that is what differentiates the top managers from the average ones.

Pardew pretty much had no defence by the time he left.

We've got a net transfere spend of about £110,00m since promotion.

In the two windows before Roy arrived we signed Luka (£12m), Schlupp (£15m), PVA (£15m) plus Sakhho on loan and Later for (£26m). In the season he "saved us" he also had Reidewald for £8m plus RLC and TFM on loan and the emerging AWB. That's £78m in transfer fees alone added to the value of the squad in 6 months.

Since then the only big departures have been Cabaye and AWB. Cabaye was aging anyway.

He's spend £3m on Jach, £10m on Kouyate, £8m on McCarthy, and Sorloth £10m which admittedly isn't much (31m), but none are first team regulars. Guaita, Meyer, and Cahill amust have significant wages too and been supported in the loan market with Batshuayi, Tosun, and Camarasa.

What's puzzeling is that he's spent most of the money he had on Holding midfielders when we had a Luka who could play that role and McArthur and Reidewald as competent back ups.

The only players that have got regular first team football are Cahill and Guaita.

So he's had £30m to spend. He didn't really need or use the players he brought in. He's ignored free transfers and loans that he's bought in.

Even then, whilst we were crying out for a striker, he shipped off Sorloth and Wickham on loan.

The board might look at it like giving money to a child to go shopping with. They'll only spend it on crap they'll never use, and they doesn't use the crap they have already. Why give them more?

So are you saying Mourinho, Klopp and Guardiola are not involved in club transfers. Sorry, I’m not buying into that.