If my years of researching and covering the non-league game have taught me anything, it's that clubs only talk of youth policies and "bringing the kids through" when they're struggling financially. If they have the funds, they buy the finished article.
That's why the Premier League elite work so hard to make sure they get by far the biggest cut of the cake, if not virtually all of it, leaving only crumbs for the also-rans.
Operation Big Picture, which caused such a frenzy last month, was only the latest idea in a string of "reforms" that have continually increased the power and wealth that lies in the hands of the biggest outfits.
While there have always been rich clubs and poor clubs, and a big-city side is going to be richer than a provincial equivalent, you could argue that the abolition of the maximum wage in 1961 was what started the widening of the gulf. Quite clearly, an Arsenal or an Everton would find it easier to manage the increase in salaries than Ipswich or Sheffield United.
Move on 22 years, and we come to the change in the way gate-money was apportioned. Pre-1983, the home team received 70 per cent of admission money, the away team got 20 per cent and the remaining five per cent was levied by the Football League. Since 1983, the home club has taken 96 per cent with the visitors only able to reclaim some administrative costs.
That may seem fair, but think about it. Manchester United are getting 96 per cent of 75,000 every home match. Brighton, if they're lucky, will get 96 per cent of 30,000. It's easy to see which way the money is going.
You can see the effect of this change by looking at title wins. In the Sixties, eight clubs won the championship. In the Seventies, it was five with one of them being Nottingham Forest. In 28 Premier League seasons only six clubs have taken the title.
In 1992, the Premier League was established to put even more cash in the pockets of the biggest, and a few years later the European Cup was converted into the curiously named Champions League — which was no longer the sole province of champions — so that the Continent's biggest clubs were almost guaranteed a place. Qualifying groups made it even more difficult for smaller sides to progress.
The Cup-winners' Cup was dispensed with and the UEFA Cup, which was once such a hotly-contested competition as it featured ambitious title-challengers, has been reduced to the much diluted Europa League.
Throughout this "evolution" the motivation has been money and its engine has been the constant threat of breakaways. Big English clubs threatened breakaways until they got the Premier League. Now, many of those protesting clubs have been left behind in the slipstream of Manchester City, United, Chelsea and a few others.
Between 2000 and 2008 Europe had the closed shop that was the G14, which later expanded to 18. Membership was by invitation only and it was established to provide a unified voice in negotiations with Fifa and Uefa. It successfully lobbied for a new deal over the release of players for internationals and a "fair" share of proceeds from the World Cup and European Championships.
What about getting a rich benefactor? Well that depends. Somebody like Jack Walker, who was extremely wealthy and made such a difference to Blackburn 25 years ago, wouldn't really cut it now. His millions wouldn't compare with those of Manchester City's Sheikh Mansour, and even in the Nineties Rovers were effectively one-season wonders. They were unable to keep spending at such a level for a prolonged period of time.
This element of football finance was put into perspective by Bob Ratcliffe when he appeared on the much-missed BBC Radio 5 programme "Sportsweek" a year ago. Ratcliffe, who is one of the richest men in the UK, heads the football division for Ineos which is owned by his brother, Sir Jim Ratcliffe.
Ineos, which is perhaps best known for taking over the Sky cycling team, recently bought Nice FC. When asked why the company saw French football as a better option than a Premier League club, Bob Ratcliffe answered: “We looked at a lot of clubs in the premiership, including Newcastle United, but you come back to a valuation in the hundreds of millions and it’s very difficult to contemplate.
“In the UK you couldn’t play Champions League football through Newcastle without spending what you’ve paid for the club every year in transfers. So you rationalise that. In France we pay a fraction of that and you’ve got three Champions League places.”
Ratcliffe went on to add that the only Champions League certainty in France is Paris St Germain. The other places are up for grabs.
So where does all this leave us? Will there be another breakaway by the richest clubs, possibly to form a European elite league? Would people watch it? It's easy to scoff at the idea but the super- inflated prices charged by Premier League clubs don't seem to have dulled demand.
Things might change if enough viewers decide they are no longer willing to pay BT and Sky subscriptions, but it's hard to see a time when the richest clubs are forced to loosen their grip on the game