Read this today and thought it would make a good dicsussion topic:
What do you think? Should the bigger clubs leave youth at the lower level? Or is them snapping up the players better for them in the long run anyway? Is the current system of developing and snapping up the brightest prospects in football detrimental on the lower clubs?
Discuss
Instead of sending young players on loan to polish them, maybe big clubs could just not sign youthful prospects until they actually required them
Daniel Sturridge expertly scored his third goal in as many games for Bolton, where he is on loan from Chelsea. Following Jack Wilshere's success at the Reebok last season while on loan from Arsenal, Bolton are rapidly developing a reputation as a finishing school par excellence for Britain's brightest talents. Both players, as it happens, started their journeys to prominence at small(ish) clubs, only to be snaffled in their youth by bigger names when their precocity became evident – Wilshere entered Luton's youth system only to be lured away by Arsenal at the age of nine, while Sturridge (having taken his first steps with Aston Villa) was taken from Coventry by Manchester City when he was 13.
Of course we'll never know what would have become of them had they not left those clubs. The coaching they have enjoyed since their departures may well have been of a higher standard, and the facilities almost certainly are. They may not have soared so high, so soon. But then again, they might have made their way to the top at a more sensible pace. Several smaller clubs might have made much-needed profits from transfer fees as the players progressed (though Coventry did make something from Sturridge in the end, a sell-on fee of around £350,000 when he joined Chelsea).
They may still have spent some time at Bolton, or a club very much like Bolton, before making their way to one of the Champions League-space-hogging behemoths. Is this model not better than the big clubs simply hoovering up all the best youngsters as early and as cheaply as possible and then spitting out the ones who fail to make the grade at a later date? Last season's top four between them have 49 players currently out on loan – according to soccerbase.com – the vast majority of whom will never earn a place in their host clubs' first XIs. Something, it strikes me, is not quite right.
"Bolton's just a platform for me to try and impress everyone, not just at Chelsea but everywhere in the world," Sturridge had said on the eve of Everton game. But haven't Bolton earned the right to be more than just a platform? They should be proud of the role they are playing in the development of these players, but angry at the system that forces it upon them.
What do you think? Should the bigger clubs leave youth at the lower level? Or is them snapping up the players better for them in the long run anyway? Is the current system of developing and snapping up the brightest prospects in football detrimental on the lower clubs?
Discuss
You come out with some stupid things luke 
without realising too might i add
