So United appear to be abandoning youth football. Or at least de-prioritising it. This from numerous articles this week on relative spends (compared to CFC/MCFC), a large loss to the Chelsea U18 (who are, admittedly, the best in Europe) and general disarray with staff.
Initially my reaction was to be obviously upset: we have produced more premier league footballers than any other club in England, and have had a youth player in the matchday squad for over 70 years.
But, if I put on my pure business hat, does youth football help the very top level? I'm not sure. Apparently City have spent upwards of 250m on developping youth facilities. And it is ridiculously impressive according to all that have been there. Indeed some United players have their kids train there. But, it's hardly helped City's first XI, despite being in place for 5 seasons. Chelsea is even more stark, they've been the best U21 and U18 team in the country more or less for half a decade, and who has made the first team? Loftus-Cheek?
Then you look at United, we have players that have made it - Welbeck, Janujaz, Cleverley, Lingard, McNair, Morrison, FB of the week - but are any of them actually good enough to win leagues? The best youth player we've had we poached from Le Havre and then refused to bend to Raiola's contract demands.
Anyway, point being, if you want to be the best team in the prem, might money be better spent just buying proven talent at a young age? Ie, let Southampton or WHU develop the kids through 17/18, have excellent youth scouting and then buy them when they're ready to train with the first team? Would cost more per player, but for the entire facility?
Soulless football 101 I know, but seems that's what our friend Ed has decided.