The telling point of his dillusion is that they do believe Hodgson can do know wrong.

I'm quite happy to give him credit for the rare occasion he gets something right, but they'll come on raving about a David vs Goliath draw against 10th place Arsenal.

Big Toe Punts recent bizarre point based on a 25 year old book where he dug out a quote saying Steve Coppell was criticised once so through an illogical series of links, Hodgson should be immune from criticism.

Roy has kept us up, when the likes of Huddersfield, Norwich, Cardiff, Swansea, Fulham have been relegated. That's not a big achievement. Two wins over struggling sides and its back to living in complete denial of the very poor performance since the 3rd game of the season.

Leeds are a newly promoted side. We have a better squad than them. We should expect anything but a win as unacceptable.

Personally I'm probably going to swerve this thread for a bit, as the argument has become not only circular and tedious, but also poorly conducted.

When something as simple as the club's net spend in Hodgsons time (actually about £10m as Willo points out) is incorrectly inflated to include major, failed signings before he arrived, the alarm bells should ring, and that's before you even get to the stuff that would invite a defamation claim if published in the mainstream.

The major issue though is the misrepresenting of others arguments. I for one have had my fill of cutting, slightly s***ty responses to points that I simply haven't made.

I am under no 'delusion' that Hodgson 'can do no wrong'. I've stated several times that I consider him to play anti-football, and that I am perfectly content for him to be replaced by someone who will do the job better.

At the same time, I recognise that Pulis, Allardyce, Houghton, Dyche and even Benitez have used anti football to keep clubs our size or bigger in the league. I have provided several examples of teams our size getting relegated playing more positively, often spending more than we have. I've asked people to nominate possible replacements for Roy, but not found any of the replies convincing for reasons I've explained in return. I've compared our results under Hodgson to our spend and concluded that, for his faults, replacing him would be a gamble in which the odds are unfavourable.

All of which can apparently be distilled down to me and others being some kind of 'pro-Roy' cheerleaders.

It's harmful to a forum like this, and certainly doesn't constitute 'healthy debate'.

Personally I'm probably going to swerve this thread for a bit, as the argument has become not only circular and tedious, but also poorly conducted.

When something as simple as the club's net spend in Hodgsons time (actually about £10m as Willo points out) is incorrectly inflated to include major, failed signings before he arrived, the alarm bells should ring, and that's before you even get to the stuff that would invite a defamation claim if published in the mainstream.

The major issue though is the misrepresenting of others arguments. I for one have had my fill of cutting, slightly s***ty responses to points that I simply haven't made.

I am under no 'delusion' that Hodgson 'can do no wrong'. I've stated several times that I consider him to play anti-football, and that I am perfectly content for him to be replaced by someone who will do the job better.

At the same time, I recognise that Pulis, Allardyce, Houghton, Dyche and even Benitez have used anti football to keep clubs our size or bigger in the league. I have provided several examples of teams our size getting relegated playing more positively, often spending more than we have. I've asked people to nominate possible replacements for Roy, but not found any of the replies convincing for reasons I've explained in return. I've compared our results under Hodgson to our spend and concluded that, for his faults, replacing him would be a gamble in which the odds are unfavourable.

All of which can apparently be distilled down to me and others being some kind of 'pro-Roy' cheerleaders.

It's harmful to a forum like this, and certainly doesn't constitute 'healthy debate'.

It would be better to close this once and for all.

Or alternatively you could stop trying to influence what others can post. You have your views they have theirs. I personally think yours are wrong but I am as entitled to them as you and I definitely do not demand the closure of a thread because it doesn’t suit one line of thinking.

Personally I'm probably going to swerve this thread for a bit, as the argument has become not only circular and tedious, but also poorly conducted.

When something as simple as the club's net spend in Hodgsons time (actually about £10m as Willo points out) is incorrectly inflated to include major, failed signings before he arrived, the alarm bells should ring, and that's before you even get to the stuff that would invite a defamation claim if published in the mainstream.

The major issue though is the misrepresenting of others arguments. I for one have had my fill of cutting, slightly s***ty responses to points that I simply haven't made.

I am under no 'delusion' that Hodgson 'can do no wrong'. I've stated several times that I consider him to play anti-football, and that I am perfectly content for him to be replaced by someone who will do the job better.

At the same time, I recognise that Pulis, Allardyce, Houghton, Dyche and even Benitez have used anti football to keep clubs our size or bigger in the league. I have provided several examples of teams our size getting relegated playing more positively, often spending more than we have. I've asked people to nominate possible replacements for Roy, but not found any of the replies convincing for reasons I've explained in return. I've compared our results under Hodgson to our spend and concluded that, for his faults, replacing him would be a gamble in which the odds are unfavourable.

All of which can apparently be distilled down to me and others being some kind of 'pro-Roy' cheerleaders.

It's harmful to a forum like this, and certainly doesn't constitute 'healthy debate'.