So when we said that the real measure of a commitment to a youth policy was actually giving the young players an opportunity with the side, that just got ignored? Appointments and words are no more of a genuine commitment than signing up youth players, spending some money or giving the reserves a fancy name. Having a genuine commitment comes down to giving those players a genuine chance with the club.
As I said before, I believe what I see. And what I see is that the club had a genuine chance to show that commitment this summer. When Mancini was whining about needing squad depth, the club could have shown genuine commitment to developing their own youth by having the manager make use of the existing youth players on a regular basis. Instead, they do the opposite and buy several players.
Mancini is the key and why a genuine commitment to developing the young players probably won't happen. Which is not a condemnation of the manager but rather recognition of his circumstance. He's under pressure to win now. Consider the Sheik patient all you want, but there is every indication that if City don't consistently get the expected results, Mancini is gone. And so long as he has the authority to select the squad, he's going to pick the best possible side to get results. His continued employment hinges on that. So what does he really care about developing players that will come good in 3-4 seasons, if committing to that could get him fired this season? As kyhadley pointed out, that's one of the major reasons that Chelsea has never really followed through on its youth policy, because managers there are always under pressure to produce results.
Its never a bad thing for a club to work on its infrastructure, but there are elements of the club culture that will have to change for it to be truly effective.