PHIL HAY: Same old story for the academies
IT is unlikely that Ken Bates and Simon Jordan are close friends or vicious enemies – Jordan once gently dismissed Leeds United's chairman as "not really my cup of tea" – but they stand on common ground over the fair trade of academy players.
The issue has been given much thought by both men, experienced as they are in the business of protecting their clubs' youngest assets.
They have come to the conclusion that the game is one which lower league chairmen tend to lose more often than they win, however belligerently they attempt to fight off the groping hands of the Premier League.
Bates used his programme notes before Tuesday's Carling Cup match against Crystal Palace, Jordan's own club, to take up the argument over John Bostock, the young midfielder who joined Tottenham from Selhurst Park for £700,000 in July.
United's chairmen did not mention Bostock by name, but it was easy enough to understand which particular player he was discussing.
It was also clear he supported Jordan's view that Palace's pocket had been picked by the award of less than £1million in compensation by a Football League tribunal.
Bostock's transfer was a classic example of why clubs beneath the Premier League have a love-hate relationship with youth development.
The midfielder was nurtured patiently by Palace, who had no desire to sell the player and had hoped to convince him that Selhurst Park was a more conducive home for a 16-year-old than White Hart Lane.
But their power of retention was drained by the fact that Bostock's contract had expired. He duly walked, and a tribunal was asked to set his fee.
The final settlement of £700,000, which Palace were obliged to accept, was described as a "packet of crisps" by Jordan – a comment which may not have struck a universal chord among the general public – but Bates seems to agree that the Championship club were sold short.
Tribunals, he argued on Tuesday night, had a responsibility to take into account the time and money invested by clubs in youth development when setting a player's fee, rather than simply basing their price on current market value.
He also contended that the fee should reflect the number of young prospects who failed to reach a professional standard but were funded and supported through the same YTS scheme nonetheless.
The argument is not without merit – it is actually a view that other lower league chairman would share – but it would take a major shift in attitude and a move against the interests of the Premier League to ensure that clubs in Palace's position feel suitably compensated when they lose players of Bostock's age and potential, even though more aggressive tribunals would force major clubs to think seriously about which players to poach.
A fee of £700,000 is relatively easy money for Spurs; a sum five times as high might have made them consider precisely how valuable Bostock would be to them.
It was, in fact, Leeds who fought back two years ago when they prised around £4million from Chelsea for Tom Taiwo and Michael Woods, having originally been offered a 10th of that amount.
The key issue about Bostock, however, was not so much his price, but rather his insistence on leaving Palace to sign for Spurs in the first place.
The 16-year-old may succeed in becoming a household name for sporting reasons when he reaches his prime, but he may equally go the way of Wayne Routledge, whose transfer between the same two clubs was a wasted exercise. Jordan warned Routledge at the time that it would be so.
Leeds, since the turn of the century, have lost more academy players than they would care to admit – Scott Carson, James Milner and so on ad nauseum.
Few required tribunals to decide their fees, and few were sold against United's wishes. The motivation for talking transfers was usually Leeds' weak financial position.
But it was also obvious that declining fortunes at Elland Road perpetuated the exodus.
Taiwo and Woods were sucked in by Chelsea, and though Danny Rose declined a move to Stamford Bridge at the same time – apparently intending to build his career at Leeds – he left for Spurs the following summer.
While the story of United's academy during the past decade talks of large sums of money generated, it also catalogues an unbelievable amount of talent sacrificed.
Through the likes of Milner, serious amounts of money came United's way – Milner might bring in an additional amount if a sell-on clause in his contract at Newcastle is activated before Monday's transfer deadline – but to what end?
Much of the income will have been sucked away by debt and insolvency, and United were relegated to League One. Little was truly gained from those sales.
The issue of youth development at Elland Road has been given fresh relevance by the sudden flurry of new, talented individuals who are moving from the club's academy towards their first team.
To that number can now be added Aidan White, whose performance against Palace on Tuesday oozed potential and marked him out immediately as a player who Leeds must nurture and protect.
United, according to Bates, are not required to auction their better players, and selling talented prospects is no longer an acceptable strategy for Leeds.
But the true warning given by Bostock's move is that the academies of clubs estranged from the Premier League are as vulnerable as ever to the men from the top-flight who would seek to turn young heads. Defending the splendid work of their academy staff is another reason why Leeds must break free from League One this season.
YEP
