It is no surprise that Brentford closed their academy for financial reasons after Josh Bohui completed his move to Manchester United, with Ian Carlo Poveda set for Manchester City.
The Bees will receive a combined fee for the pair of them in the region of £50-60,000. Contrast that with the £1.6million costs per year, which doesn't include a grant from the Football League, the academy generates the powers that be decided it was not worth the investment.
Closing the academy was not a popular move and, I'm sure the club would have gone about it differently in the benefit of hindsight such as not having under-7 players on the pitch during the game against Fulham.
However, when you consider that the club spend a sizable amount of money, per player, yet when they have one that catches the eye of one of the Premier League giants they can do little to keep them.
And when they get a fee for a player that is less than two per cent of their actual costs what is the financial sense of doing so? None.
I believe clubs need a youth setup that runs deeper than the system Brentford have now as picking up 17-year-olds released by clubs has its flaws but, given the way the current rules are, they have little choice.
I wouldn't be surprised if other clubs, particularly those small-budget ones like Brentford, don't take a similar step and amazed if no other club was, at the very least, considering it.
The Premier League will claim that it will increase the number and quality of home grown players gaining professional contracts but will it?
Top flight clubs stockpile talented players in their academies but, nearly five years after its inception, we are yet to see any benefit.
The setup benefits the wealthiest clubs but, with few exceptions, how often do academy prospects make it into that Premier League side's first team? Marcus Rashford is an exception but playing him, to an extent, was forced upon Louis Van Gaal due to injuries. He then proved he was worth a spot in the first team.
It is human nature to be governed by self-interest and football clubs are no different. We hear it's all to benefit England's chances but it's not; it's to benefit their own clubs.
After all, they're the ones paying vast sums of money in wages to their first team players and there is a perception that internationals are an inconvenience. There have been reports of players not wanting to go on international duty ably supported by clubs.
Youth setup in this country is flawed and has been for several years. The Premier League holds the power base, not the FA and, as such, decisions are made to benefit them; see the ludicrous format of the Checkatrade Trophy as one example.
In cricket, for example, the elite England players are contracted by the ECB and it is the other way round with the counties suffering as they dictate when their star players can play for them or not.
I believe that's too far, and too expensive, for the FA to do. However, maybe a system needs to be in place that, when a player is called up for England, the FA pay their wages for the days they are with the Three Lions, meaning the players are then under contract with their country as well as their club.
