You are here: Home > Message Board > Palace Talk > roy out
March 28 2024 10.01pm

roy out

Previous Topic | Next Topic


Page 160 of 385 < 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 >

 

View Elwissthebest's Profile Elwissthebest Flag Marlborough 19 Jan 21 4.34pm Send a Private Message to Elwissthebest Add Elwissthebest as a friend


Jeeagles writes:

'Again, we have the 15th most expensively assembled squad and 9th highest wage bill. We should be looking at between 11th and 13th as acceptable.'

And that seems very reasonable. The question has always been: 'Does RH do enough with the resources at his disposal?' If we take the view of the ghastly Souness that 'survival every season is a triumph for Palace' then the sort of football the players serve up while he is manager might be excused, but how depressing! My local team, Hungerford F.C., plays in NL South. Three seasons ago, it needed to win the last game of the season to stay up. It did. Two seasons ago it needed to draw the last game of the season to stay up. It did. That's what you call progress! Last season it would have been relegated by a country mile but for the cancellation of the season. So: 'Just survive?' Not a bit of it. New Chairman, new young manager, five players retained, eighteen new players shipped in and all on the smallest budget in the league: an unbelievable £100,000. Currently fourth in the table. Of course we are not comparing like with like, but frankly, that sort of effort puts us to shame. The 'Be Careful What You Wish For Brigade' deserves the sort of football Palace serves up at the moment. For heaven's sake: the manager is 73! How many more seasons do you want from the man? Sure, he did a brilliant job, keeping us up after de Boer's departure. He doesn't do it for charity! It's a results-driven business indeed. If the punters don't like the football that's being served up, they've a right to say so. The point about football behind closed doors giving RH a stay of execution is well made.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View PatrickA's Profile PatrickA Flag London 19 Jan 21 4.47pm Send a Private Message to PatrickA Add PatrickA as a friend

Appreciate the great respect Willo, even if you disagree with my view.
I hope that watching future Palace games under Hodgson on TV will not lead to you switching off or changing channels in anger and desperation.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Willo's Profile Willo Flag South coast - west of Brighton. 19 Jan 21 4.54pm Send a Private Message to Willo Add Willo as a friend

Originally posted by PatrickA

Appreciate the great respect Willo, even if you disagree with my view.
I hope that watching future Palace games under Hodgson on TV will not lead to you switching off or changing channels in anger and desperation.

Rest assured I have been in a hissy fit and molten with anger pre-Mr Hodgson to the extent that expletives have preceded a change of channel or a hefty push on the OFF button.

Indeed are views are at variance on this matter but at least we have expressed them without rancour or personal slurs.Differences of opinion add to the rich tapestry of HOL and other discussion sites.

Edited by Willo (19 Jan 2021 4.56pm)

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View NEILLO's Profile NEILLO Flag Shoreham-by-Sea 19 Jan 21 4.57pm Send a Private Message to NEILLO Add NEILLO as a friend

Originally posted by Elwissthebest


Jeeagles writes:

'Again, we have the 15th most expensively assembled squad and 9th highest wage bill. We should be looking at between 11th and 13th as acceptable.'

And that seems very reasonable. The question has always been: 'Does RH do enough with the resources at his disposal?' If we take the view of the ghastly Souness that 'survival every season is a triumph for Palace' then the sort of football the players serve up while he is manager might be excused, but how depressing! My local team, Hungerford F.C., plays in NL South. Three seasons ago, it needed to win the last game of the season to stay up. It did. Two seasons ago it needed to draw the last game of the season to stay up. It did. That's what you call progress! Last season it would have been relegated by a country mile but for the cancellation of the season. So: 'Just survive?' Not a bit of it. New Chairman, new young manager, five players retained, eighteen new players shipped in and all on the smallest budget in the league: an unbelievable £100,000. Currently fourth in the table. Of course we are not comparing like with like, but frankly, that sort of effort puts us to shame. The 'Be Careful What You Wish For Brigade' deserves the sort of football Palace serves up at the moment. For heaven's sake: the manager is 73! How many more seasons do you want from the man? Sure, he did a brilliant job, keeping us up after de Boer's departure. He doesn't do it for charity! It's a results-driven business indeed. If the punters don't like the football that's being served up, they've a right to say so. The point about football behind closed doors giving RH a stay of execution is well made.

Some of us on here fully understand this to be the case. Do we like it ? - no, at least I don't. But I can comprehend the reasons behind it. People abuse Hodgson for doing his job. Which is why I and others on here defend him.

Yes, the football is dull. But it does enough to keep us in the Premier League until such time as the club is either willing or able to invest in improving the squad and looking beyond a 12 month cycle.

I love your Hungerford story but as you rightly point out, bears no comparison to the way that a Premier League club is run. And therefore your comment about putting Palace to shames is totally - as is that whole piece - pointless. And without pissing on those particular chips, once the money goes out of that club, as happens in so many non-league clubs, they will probably be back in the mire again.

 


Old, Ungifted and White

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Eaglecoops's Profile Eaglecoops Flag CR3 19 Jan 21 5.05pm Send a Private Message to Eaglecoops Add Eaglecoops as a friend

Originally posted by NEILLO

Some of us on here fully understand this to be the case. Do we like it ? - no, at least I don't. But I can comprehend the reasons behind it. People abuse Hodgson for doing his job. Which is why I and others on here defend him.

Yes, the football is dull. But it does enough to keep us in the Premier League until such time as the club is either willing or able to invest in improving the squad and looking beyond a 12 month cycle.

I love your Hungerford story but as you rightly point out, bears no comparison to the way that a Premier League club is run. And therefore your comment about putting Palace to shames is totally - as is that whole piece - pointless. And without pissing on those particular chips, once the money goes out of that club, as happens in so many non-league clubs, they will probably be back in the mire again.

TBF he did say it’s the effort that puts us to shame, not the money.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View TheBigToePunt's Profile TheBigToePunt Flag 19 Jan 21 5.27pm Send a Private Message to TheBigToePunt Add TheBigToePunt as a friend

Originally posted by jeeagles

If you think we are going down, then I cant see how you have confidence in him to meet his minimum expectation this season.

As for performance,

2 goals in our last 7 games.
2 wins in our last 12 games (against 19th with 10men and 20th place sides).
35 points in 2020.

23 points looks ok, but the more sensible Hodgson supporters realise that this has got to change before it's too late.

Again, we have the 15th most expensively assembled squad and 9th highest wage bill. We should be looking at between 11th and 13th as acceptable.


These figures, whilst accurate as far as they go, don't tell the story regarding Hodgsons performance at all.

The bulk of the transfer fees and wages spent building this squad were all from before Hodgson arrived. After that the only signings for a fee were Kouyaté, Sorloth, Ayew and McCarthy until this summer when we bought Eze and then Butland. Everyone else has been a free transfer. Hodgson may have inherited a squad comprising the 15th biggest spend on fees over a five year period, but he himself has only had the benefit of a small part of even that comparatively limited spending.

The wage bill is also a red herring, as we all agree that most of the big earners at present offer poor value for money, and that many should be written off as such this summer. Few people have Sakho, Wickham, Meyer, Kelly, Hennessey or even Dann or PVA in their first choice XIs (Roy certainly doesn't), and without them the wage bill is nothing like the 9th highest. That supports a point made frequently elsewhere that I appreciate you don't fully agree with - that whatever we happen to pay them, this isn't a very good group of players compared to everyone else's. The ninth highest wage bill doesn't equate to the manager working with ninth best set of players at all. Ours are plainly nowhere near that good.

I've no problem with Roy being replaced if, and only if, the new manager is an improvement. The concern I have about so many Roy-out posts is that they seem not to recognise how difficult it's going to be to achieve that. With respect I don't think your method of measuring what constitutes adequate performance is a fair or reasonable one.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Eaglecoops's Profile Eaglecoops Flag CR3 19 Jan 21 5.34pm Send a Private Message to Eaglecoops Add Eaglecoops as a friend

Originally posted by TheBigToePunt


These figures, whilst accurate as far as they go, don't tell the story regarding Hodgsons performance at all.

The bulk of the transfer fees and wages spent building this squad were all from before Hodgson arrived. After that the only signings for a fee were Kouyaté, Sorloth, Ayew and McCarthy until this summer when we bought Eze and then Butland. Everyone else has been a free transfer. Hodgson may have inherited a squad comprising the 15th biggest spend on fees over a five year period, but he himself has only had the benefit of a small part of even that comparatively limited spending.

The wage bill is also a red herring, as we all agree that most of the big earners at present offer poor value for money, and that many should be written off as such this summer. Few people have Sakho, Wickham, Meyer, Kelly, Hennessey or even Dann or PVA in their first choice XIs (Roy certainly doesn't), and without them the wage bill is nothing like the 9th highest. That supports a point made frequently elsewhere that I appreciate you don't fully agree with - that whatever we happen to pay them, this isn't a very good group of players compared to everyone else's. The ninth highest wage bill doesn't equate to the manager working with ninth best set of players at all. Ours are plainly nowhere near that good.

I've no problem with Roy being replaced if, and only if, the new manager is an improvement. The concern I have about so many Roy-out posts is that they seem not to recognise how difficult it's going to be to achieve that. With respect I don't think your method of measuring what constitutes adequate performance is a fair or reasonable one.

Is it a red herring because they are genuinely decent players who don’t play that decent any more, or because we paid them too much when they first arrived and they were never really worth those wages?

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Painter's Profile Painter Flag Croydon 19 Jan 21 6.13pm Send a Private Message to Painter Add Painter as a friend

Originally posted by jeeagles


If investment in the squad is what you desire, the business aren't going to plough millions into an underperforming 73 year old. No business would, even if he was meeting expectations.

He isnt under performing, he is doing exactly what is asked of him by his employers.
Would any business invest in someone his age, well the USA have voted in a new President aged 78 years old, one of the 3 top posts on the world

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View WJK1960's Profile WJK1960 Flag 19 Jan 21 6.31pm Send a Private Message to WJK1960 Add WJK1960 as a friend

Originally posted by TheBigToePunt


These figures, whilst accurate as far as they go, don't tell the story regarding Hodgsons performance at all.

The bulk of the transfer fees and wages spent building this squad were all from before Hodgson arrived. After that the only signings for a fee were Kouyaté, Sorloth, Ayew and McCarthy until this summer when we bought Eze and then Butland. Everyone else has been a free transfer. Hodgson may have inherited a squad comprising the 15th biggest spend on fees over a five year period, but he himself has only had the benefit of a small part of even that comparatively limited spending.

The wage bill is also a red herring, as we all agree that most of the big earners at present offer poor value for money, and that many should be written off as such this summer. Few people have Sakho, Wickham, Meyer, Kelly, Hennessey or even Dann or PVA in their first choice XIs (Roy certainly doesn't), and without them the wage bill is nothing like the 9th highest. That supports a point made frequently elsewhere that I appreciate you don't fully agree with - that whatever we happen to pay them, this isn't a very good group of players compared to everyone else's. The ninth highest wage bill doesn't equate to the manager working with ninth best set of players at all. Ours are plainly nowhere near that good.

I've no problem with Roy being replaced if, and only if, the new manager is an improvement. The concern I have about so many Roy-out posts is that they seem not to recognise how difficult it's going to be to achieve that. With respect I don't think your method of measuring what constitutes adequate performance is a fair or reasonable one.

Excellent post.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Rachid Rachid Rachid's Profile Rachid Rachid Rachid Flag 19 Jan 21 6.48pm Send a Private Message to Rachid Rachid Rachid Add Rachid Rachid Rachid as a friend

Originally posted by TheBigToePunt


These figures, whilst accurate as far as they go, don't tell the story regarding Hodgsons performance at all.

The bulk of the transfer fees and wages spent building this squad were all from before Hodgson arrived. After that the only signings for a fee were Kouyaté, Sorloth, Ayew and McCarthy until this summer when we bought Eze and then Butland. Everyone else has been a free transfer. Hodgson may have inherited a squad comprising the 15th biggest spend on fees over a five year period, but he himself has only had the benefit of a small part of even that comparatively limited spending.

The wage bill is also a red herring, as we all agree that most of the big earners at present offer poor value for money, and that many should be written off as such this summer. Few people have Sakho, Wickham, Meyer, Kelly, Hennessey or even Dann or PVA in their first choice XIs (Roy certainly doesn't), and without them the wage bill is nothing like the 9th highest. That supports a point made frequently elsewhere that I appreciate you don't fully agree with - that whatever we happen to pay them, this isn't a very good group of players compared to everyone else's. The ninth highest wage bill doesn't equate to the manager working with ninth best set of players at all. Ours are plainly nowhere near that good.

I've no problem with Roy being replaced if, and only if, the new manager is an improvement. The concern I have about so many Roy-out posts is that they seem not to recognise how difficult it's going to be to achieve that. With respect I don't think your method of measuring what constitutes adequate performance is a fair or reasonable one.

Great post. Most of the cost pertains to players signed at peak age of mid to late twenties on long contracts three to four years ago. All well and truly on the way down at the same time.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View TheBigToePunt's Profile TheBigToePunt Flag 19 Jan 21 7.08pm Send a Private Message to TheBigToePunt Add TheBigToePunt as a friend

Originally posted by Eaglecoops

Is it a red herring because they are genuinely decent players who don’t play that decent any more, or because we paid them too much when they first arrived and they were never really worth those wages?

Probably a bit of both, but either way the point stands I think: the spending hasn't resulted in Roy having players worth the money, so judging him by that financial outlay isn't fair.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
jeeagles Flag 19 Jan 21 7.56pm

Originally posted by Painter
He isnt under performing, he is doing exactly what is asked of him by his employers.
Would any business invest in someone his age, well the USA have voted in a new President aged 78 years old, one of the 3 top posts on the world

Why would anyone cite the state of US politics as a positive reference to try and back up an arguement?

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply

 

Page 160 of 385 < 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

You are here: Home > Message Board > Palace Talk > roy out