This thread sometimes gives the impression that it is populated by Hodgson fans as opposed to Palace fans.
Every issue is given as the fault of somebody else - Parish, Freedman, the American investors, the ageing squad, the lack of talented young players coming through, players letting him down, squad depth, injuries.
It’s remarkable and perhaps he should be nicknamed ‘Teflon Roy.’
He’s likely to keep us up which is the minimum that should be expected with what he acknowledges to be the best squad he has had in his time at the club.
Some of us would like us to play with more spirit and adventure and not surrender tamely in cup competitions or accept defeat before a game has kicked off.
At his age, and with his dismissive approach to young players not steeped in his methods, it could be argued that he is not the best candidate to supervise the necessary rebuild.

I have my evidence, where is yours to disprove this point?

Parish went out and spent a ton of money to bring Eze into our squad to generate more offense, and not be so reliant on Wilf.

Do you think Parish is pleased with what Roy is getting out of his large investment? We added Eze, and still rarely get one shot in a game.

How about Bats? We use a valuable loan to bring him in, and he sits on the bench every game, even though we have no one else capable of scoring, or even getting a shot on goal.

Do you think Parish is pleased with that piece of business?

Past years, our bench was abysmal, and Roy kept us up with barely 11 players. This year, we have the strongest squad we've had under Roy, and if anything, we look much worse.

Roy has run his course here, time to move on. The players have tuned him out. Hopefully we avoid relegation this year, give Roy a nice send off for a job well done, and get a new manager for next season.

I'm so glad someone has posted a reasonable argument to back up Roy. It's frustrating that recently people have just been claiming he deserves praise for being from Croydon, having 40 years experience, and most irritatingly of all - achieving a 0-0 draw with 10th place Arsenal.

I agree that Roy should be keeping the club in a safe mid table position. I'm not even that fussed about the style of play - just that Roy is too conservative with his tactics and substitutions especially against teams lower down the table when we need to chase a game.

Where we digress is what the definition of "safe mid-table" is. 14th last season was acceptable but below expectation, our second lowest premiership position since promotion (although Pardew got us to a cup final).

Between 14th and 11th is about what we should be expecting.

The issues are that we are on the decline. Final positions of 11th, 12th, and 14th show that.

In the 2020 calendar year we achieve 35 points, with a catastrophic end of the season. Relegation form - not safe mid-table form, over a prolonged period. He should have gone then.

A couple of wins catching Southampton and Manchester United off guard and underprepared help paper the cracks, but 23 points is a reasonable total at the half way stage. Only 3 points above were we need to be to survive. But if 14th to 11th is mid-table, then mealy surviving is unacceptable.

We've currently won 2 of our last 12. Including very disappointing performances vs Burley, Newcastle, Liverpool, Villa, Wolves, and City. Those wins came against the team in 19th place (with 10 men + and own goal), and 20th.

Something has to be done to top this accelerating decline.

At 73 and with 6 months left on his contract. To put it into context, Hodgson is definitely too old to get a mortgage, and would be very fortunate to even get a small loan. No sensible business would invest millions of pound in him - especially based on the performance over the last 12 months.

We've got a reasonable cushion, let's give someone else ago - it would give everyone a lift.

In recent weeks, many of the players have been hitting the headlines for the wrong reasons, Luka's party, Eze's visit to QPR, Meyer's exit, and Batshuyai's fight. Issues in isolation wouldn't be that bad. This doesn't seem to be happening at other clubs and must be a red flag?

I'd prefer a manager that would be less of a "yes man" and put more pressure on the board for the sake of the club. Whilst player age, contracts, signings, youth progression, might not be in the managers remit, it would still be in the interest of the club to employ someone who takes a stronger stance on the matters.

You seem to totally disregard Silvertops excellant post.

Roys remit is to keep us in the Premier, how he does it, is of little concern to the owners, who see staying there vital to the longterm growth of the club. Man City away wouldnt of been a game targetted to reap points, especially without Zaha and Schlupp. So Roys set up was the same as in the 2 previous seasons at City, but this time it didnt work.