An interesting piece by Martin Samuel on Monday raised the realistic prospect of Premier League clubs making formal arrangements whereby the smaller outfit provides feeder club-like services to the bigger club.
According to Samuel, Karen Brady, Birmingham’s lippy Chief Executive, was heard talking about the idea following a recent meeting of Premier League clubs. Brady said: “There was a chat about feeder clubs inside the Premier League, so one day links between Chelsea and Bolton may be official”.
As you’d expect of Martin Samuel (but not necessarily of the Mail), his article does raise a number of intelligent points on why such arrangements would be a bad idea. He argues that it would set an alarming precedent and that the dependency created would, in theory, reduce the aspirations of the feeder club to zero and diminish the excitement of that club’s fans. He also points to the potential for corruption, along the way making the obvious point that the current loan system has exactly the same effect. 
Now don’t get me wrong, I would very much be against the bigger clubs sealing these kind of arrangements with teams in the same league, and I really don’t think there’s a chance of it happening. The corruption point is the absolute killer, but I think the overt nature of the relationship would make concrete the sub-divisions within the league and would help perpetuate a situation where, in general, the bigger clubs are invulnerable to challenge from below. This can’t be good for the game, and is one of the reasons why Chelsea and Manchester City coming into money in recent years has to be a good thing.
But I also think Samuel’s reaction is a little disproportionate. Why should we be so much more happy with PSV (effectively), for example, being our feeder club than Bolton? How do PSV fans feel about that? Doesn’t that relegate them to perpetual footballing servitude to the Chelsea ‘man’? Yes, Chelsea play football in the English Premier League, but we are also part of a wider European (and global) game, and I suspect that what affects one club affects others further afield in a more direct way than ever before.
Samuel also assumes that becoming a feeder club is a one way street – an arrangement that only benefits the bigger partner. He neatly sidesteps the fact that smaller clubs aren’t forced into such deals – they operate in a market and make the decisions based on potential reward. Most frequently they receive lucrative financial reward, either in the form of cash payments or friendly games, and also first option on loaning players to provide them with short-term and cheap access to good players. One can only assume that, if Gartside really is in favour of a partnership with Chelsea, he believes Bolton would benefit. Otherwise he really wouldn’t be doing his job.
Of course, there are other, Chelsea-focused arguments against the Bolton link-up though. For example, do we really think Bolton’s brand of – hardly samba-style – football is a suitable hotbed for creating Chelsea’s young talent of the future? And do they have any record of producing youngsters? I forget the last Bolton player to go on to play for Real Madrid…
And what happens to our arrangement with West Ham? Won’t they feel like their position as our (and England’s) primary feeder club is being undermined? 
Finally, maybe there are better club partnerships Chelsea could consider? Now let me see, what would the criteria for a perfect feeder club be? We’re looking for a club with a good youth record. One with falling expectations as hopes of success fade. They should also play competitive-ish football and have a manager under no pressure to deliver success who is willing to give youth a chance. Methinks there’s an option closer to home…
Have an opinion on the potential for Premier League feeder clubs? Post a comment!
I posted a reply to this article that the Mail chose not to publish. In my view feeder clubs (from lower divisions) would solve many of the major problems in the game today, from bringing through youngsters, reducing the dependance upon foreign journeymen to lower-league club finances.
There is not a single problem it throws up that cannot be sorted with a few practical rules.
Was very disappointed by Samuel's hackneyd version of "what if teams get drawn against each other in the FA cup?" argument against what I believe would be a mojor step forwards.
Posted by: StanStreason | 19 August 2009 at 16:51
Anelka left Bolton for Chelsea
Posted by: Pete | 19 August 2009 at 16:59
StanStreason - thanks for your comment and welcome to the blog. Shame the Mail censored your point, think it's an interesting one. English football does suffer from home-grown players being hugely overpriced, and foreign players therefore being just too tempting a prospect. As you say, if some kind of system like this - with lower league clubs - can help younger English players become a cheaper and viable alternative, it can only be a good thing.
Pete - thanks for your comment too. You're right, and so did Ben Haim and Eidur. Didn't really consider this. But any team can buy good players. I don't think these were Bolton 'products' - surely the main benefit of a feeder club would be to pick up the younger players they produce and 'blood' existing younger players?
As I say, regardless of putting the pros and cons, I can't see that a) this partnership would happen or b) that it could be a good thing for Bolton or the league.
Posted by: Russell Saunders | 19 August 2009 at 17:12
The gap between playing reserve team football and the premiership (let alone big 4 who cannot afford to drop any points) is just too big yet what happens when players go out on loan? They train under different systems and managers and often it does them no good whatsoever (Sinclair or Ben Sahar anyone?). The youngsters in the top teams tend to be those purchased from abroad who have already played champions league football (Essien - Ronaldo).
How many of the England under 21s have played Champions league. Hardly any because they dont in general play in the top 4 teams.
We have to do something to resolve this problem and feeder clubs where the big club can control training, tactics etc must be a help. (Although loans to Roberto Di Matteo or Brendan Rodgers are probably going to work).
Posted by: StanStreason | 19 August 2009 at 17:27
ha ha ha...loving the west ham joke
you've got to hand it to their academy though
Posted by: chelsfan | 19 August 2009 at 17:29
And the last Chelsea youth team product to play for Real Madrid was?
Posted by: Mick | 20 August 2009 at 13:56