Quote:
> Mugwump wrote on 10/1/97:
>>Joins a huge list of undervalued players discared by Leeds.
>>Mugwump.
>Yeh, I've got to agree with you. As soon as we bring some players through from
>Academy to Alliance to SL, we go and sell them. Surely this is a waste of having
>a youth policy. Also they can't be bad players, both the Alliance and Academy
>teams have been doing exceptionally well in the past couple of seasons, much
>better than the first team. :-)
>Lloyd
> !! |-------------------------------------------| !!
> !!!! | --iNTERzONE iNcORpOrATED--- | !!!!
> / \ |-------------------------------------------| / \
> ( O||O ) |"I think it's time for you boys to share my| ( O||O )
> ( /\ ) |last taste of the true black meat - flesh | ( /\ )
> (/##\) |of the giant aquatic Brazilian Centipede" | (/##\)
Agreed, though there is another way of looking at it. The academy costs money to run. ALot of money, not just in wages and stuff. If=
some players are brought through that aren't good enough for SL, then they should be sold, therfore the youth system pays for itsel=
f, and we can keep on bringing players of the calibre of Cummins and Morley through. See what I mean. After all, if we do eventually=
sell Mick Shaw, we could get about =A350,000+ for him, which easily pays for the academy system. Its a harsh world, but everything =
that is spent has to be recouped somehow. Look at teh amount of young players that Leeds have sold off that have actually made it. A=
ll I can think of is Jon Scales at the Bulls. Compare it with the list of those that haven't. Paul Cook (prime example) Paul Anderso=
n, Darren Hughes, Gareth Stephens, Martin Law,....and you can see that sometimes, the coaches DO actually know what they are doing.
Of course this is just a general point. I still say that we shouldn't have sold Handley and Maher cos they ARE good.
cheers
tommo