Disagree we still have some quality players but if you do not focus on their strengths they will look poor and lack confidence.

Injuries can be for many reasons and I expect it's again due to the system and Roy being so stubborn a lot of talk about rotation but he doesn't do this unless forced to.

Have you even been watching Palace the so called counter attacking is terrible under Roy go back and watch Palace first season being promoted on wards when we countered it was with purpose and speed now its low risk and very slow.

The other thing you cant keep playing the same way changes need to be done for when you go up against different teams we have seen this against teams we should be beating or minimum a draw yet they go and score 3 times against us Burnley game sums it up.

We are not solid in defense anymore look at the goal difference is is poor and Roy can make all the excuses up he wants about this team put 7 past us or 5 past us that is still goals conceded and as mentioned above Burnley put 3 past us complete joke.

At the end of the day for a team which has been in this league a long time now the football is unacceptable we have some quality players its not like we are using championship level players (even those seasons we used that level player it was some better football at time)

Money has been spend so this excuse cant be used, the Americans who people like to keep blaming for everything negative (cant blame SP for anything he is a god) put in cash when that was not the role coming into this club SP even stated this on day 1 they was about improving training/ground etc not the playing squad.

When did Roy get money to spend?????? £50 mil from AWB - he had to make do with 5mil for Ayew and McCarthy - and those two buys basically kept us up last season. He can't rotate players if they're unavailable through injury, so do you blame the injury records of Tomkins, Cahill, Sakho, Dann, Kelly, Schlupp and MacArthur (lately), on Roy????? It's hard to rotate when you only have 14 players available. And Luka, McArthur, Townsend, Ward, McCarthy, and all our central defenders are past their peak, Roy has NOT been given sufficient funds to replace these players or enhance the squad, and we aren't as quick on the break anymore because we don't have a Bolasie and Puncheon in their prime on each wing. We have splashed out on Eze, and you can argue he has not been deployed as effectively as he might, but he is not part of the spine of the team, and to change the dynamic of our play we need to upgrade the supply to the likes of Eze and Zaha, and Roy has not been given the chance to do that, and I think that is what is stalling our progress, not Roy, he's just keeping us ticking over until we can implement the improvements needed to the ground as well as our level of financial investment.

My entire time of supporting Palace, I have basically expected them to be pretty rubbish. That way, I get the odd nice surprise, like 1980 and 1990 for example. We're not total rubbish now, just pretty rubbish for the Premier League. And above Brighton. Overall it's slightly better than our usual yo-yo or Championship status.
As for individual players, I genuinely don't think many are that good at the moment. Probably adequate is how I would describe most of our players. Wilf is the obvious quality and Eze obvious potential.
I think a couple of our youngsters are ok though and might get some chances next season. Mitchell could improve too.

£20m? Original price is mooted to have been £9.5m. Where on earth did the £10m add-ons come from? What did he do for us to earn any add-ons? He was sold for 20m euros (plus add-ons - haha).

it was 9m up front and it would of gone up to 20m with addons one of those was sell on fee.

Palace didnt get 20m for him they had to split the deal so he was sold for around 10m

I didn't say we got 20m euros, just that he was sold for that amount. I am fully aware we had to split the proceeds with the Turks. But back to your claim, Sorloth DIDN'T cost us £20m, so why did you say he did? It seems to me that your dislike (or hatred?) of Hodgson tends to warp your arguments.