John Bostock's Tribunal: How Will Clubs Protect Themselves?

John Bostock’s protracted move from Crystal Palace to Tottenham has garnered a huge amount of press attention. The fee set by the tribunal, £700 000 rising to £1.25 dependent on appearances, has provoked outrage amongst many Palace fans, acutely aware that they have lost an extremely talented player for a fraction of his potential worth.

First things first; I have to admit that I myself am a Palace fan, and so I have watched the whole story unveil with interest. Having had the fortune to watch Bostock on more than one occasion (which might be more than can be said for other commentators), I firmly believe he has the talent to reach the very top.

Even though he is yet to fully develop, he coped admirably with the physical pressures of the Championship and showed himself to have great technical ability. Equally, he appears to have that self-belief and inner confidence that all top players possess.

I don’t begrudge his move to Tottenham, I am sure he made that decision as he felt it best enhanced his career prospects. As a life-long Palace fan, it cannot have been an easy decision, and the criticism he is receiving on his MySpace and Bebo profiles should stop.

If it was about money, he could have gone to Chelsea, but I believe that Bostock (and his father, who advises him) see White Hart Lane as the best place for him to learn his trade and maximise his potential. Whether or not this is accurate is another debate for another time—but it is unfair to question the motives of his move.

I don’t agree with the transfer fee, but that is to be expected from anyone who worships at the altar of Selhurst Park. Nine years of training should at least be worth a hefty sell-on-clause, regardless of any initial fee.

Yes, I accept that Bostock was out of contract, and so only compensation for training expenses incurred should be awarded—but does that make it right?

Bostock could not sign a professional contract with the Eagles until he was 16, as per FA rules, so Tottenham made him aware of their interest and he subsequently opted to make the move across London.

Palace, it is widely accepted, offered Bostock a contract very similar to the one he now enjoys with Spurs—what more could we have done to keep him? A bigger club turned his head, from that point it should have been the FA’s job to do more to protect Palace.

Unfortunately, as it has transpired, the FA could not do that. It probably did not help that it was Simon Jordan on one side of the room, the Palace chairman has had more than one run-in with the FA bigwigs. Jordan is not the easiest person to like (although it seems to me that many of his "outspoken" views are just common sense) and perhaps those on the tribunal were prejudiced against him.

Whatever the case, they failed to adequately protect Crystal Palace, and set a dangerous precedent for all subsequent clubs that find themselves in a similar situation.

Young players will suffer, too. If only training expenses will be received for young talent, what is the point of having a youth system at the lower level?

A costly exercise, the FA have opened a can of worms, whereby all promising talent at lower levels will be hoovered up by Premier League clubs happy to throw the meager fee demanded of them on the off chance one becomes world class.

Only the average players will make it into senior squads—who does that help? This may be an exaggerated example, but does anyone believe that Premier League squads will not now be actively scouting lower-league systems for those cut-price gems?

Perhaps then, if the FA are not going to protect the Football League clubs, said clubs will have to protect themselves. How? By saying nothing, by keeping quiet.

If the talented young players do not get any coverage, how will the big clubs hear about them? There is a precedent for this course of action, from across the Atlantic, in Brazil.

You have all heard of Alexandre Pato by now. The 18-year-old Brazilian international, plying his trade for AC Milan, had a storming season last time out and looks destined to be one of the top strikers of his era.

But his profile was not always so high.

At his first club, Internacional, the club went to great lengths to ensure that other clubs did not hear about him. He did not play many youth games; he did not represent Brazil at any youth level. For European scouts, he did not exist.

For many in the club, he did not either—players and coaches were asked to sign legal papers that forbade them from mentioning his name to anyone outside the club.

Why did they do this?

Because before Pato was 17, he could have gone to Europe at a cut price—much like Lionel Messi. Once he was 17, and locked into a contract, Internacional could get a decent transfer fee, one that would help sustain a club that relies heavily on selling players. £15.9m later (his minimum fee release clause), Internacional had money to keep the club running for many years to come.

The example might be an extreme one, what with it being far easier to hide a player from clubs thousands of miles away than ones just the other side of the Thames, but the example is relevant nonetheless.

Clubs will have to take steps to protect themselves—keeping their best young talent out of the limelight is one way. It might hurt the national (youth) teams, the players themselves, and even the fans who love to hear about exciting youth products, but ultimately, in this age where many clubs rely on their youth systems to survive, without protection from the FA, what choice do they have?

It might be hard for Simon Jordan, but perhaps in future the best course of action is to just keep quiet.