The article had a dismissive and insulting tone but there is a fair point in there - whereas Brighton, Bournemouth, Fulham and Brentford have been progressive with a distinctive attacking style, for ten years we've been treading water, and winning by out-battling teams or relying on one or two stars - although I do think this squad does display genuine progress from ten years ago, and from five years ago too. It looked like that progress was about to happen last back end, but we know what's happened since and we have shown our usual resilence to turn it around. We are basically the new Coventry City - 1967 to 2001 they stayed in the top flight and were top half twice. As for our image, to some we are likable, ardently supported and charismatic while many others, quite fairly, will see us in the grand scheme of things as a gaily coloured suburban irrelevance. There's no Palace brand of football, we've got nowhere near Europe, unlike Brighton and Burnley, Brentford have flirted, Bournemouth will be there and Fulham are threatening. But considering our less than megabucks ownership we've done great to establish ourselves, and I think progress is happening under Glasner, but injuries and exits have stalled it. The writer is far from the only person to have asked what we are trying to achieve in the top flight beyond survival, and we can't tread water forever. If and when this new stand gets built, that I think will go a long way to quelling this kind of disrespect, otherwise we might reasonably be seen as basically a championship outfit gatecrashing the premier league.
England
