It is a mixture of things really for me.

I am sure Tan could have backed Warnock further in the transfer market but when he did with the likes of Bobby Reid and Murphy they stayed on the bench. The fees might be peanuts in Premier League terms but for a club like us to spend that sort of cash and not improve the starting 11 for the majority of games is criminal.
Did this play a part in our January transfer window? I know if many managers had given funds to improve the team by their chairman and it wasn't they would think twice next time around. That is only natural.

We knew we needed a striker back at the end of last season and dragged our feet then we all know what happened with Sala.
Could the £20 million plus seemingly wasted on Reid and Murphy not have been spent on a striker that would have got us 10 or so goals? Personally I think it could and should have been spent better.

Then there was the tactical side of things. Our park the bus while having a porous defence did not work at the start of the season yet we stuck with it right up until Fulham last Saturday when we had to really go all out for the win.

Ultimately we do not have enough goals in the team or enough quality in all areas of the pitch.
This is down to a mixture of Tan not providing funds (partly due to not trusting Warnock too much with them) and Warnock's tactical shortcomings with players of little quality and a lack of glaring gaps plugged (striker being the main one and right back).

I can't see us realistically being able to go up and stay there until the purse strings loosen and, as sad as it is to say, we go with a progressive manager who feels that there are other ways to play than parking the bus in 90% of your games and hoping to nick them by the odd goal.
Fulham on the weekend was as down as I have been about a performance given what was at stake and how much joy we got when we did go at them. What could have been eh?