Leeds were well compensated for a player they had from age 8/9 to 15/16. The value added expertise for top flight football was put in all by Everton. I cant see where the exploitation of Leeds came into that. On the other hand, another PL club will be getting a bargain at Everton's expense.
The other thing is that, unlike Moyes, Martinez has underlined his future at Everton. He loaned him out only briefly to Colchester and recalled him as soon as Oviedo picked up an injury, which must have emphasised how highly he was thought of. He had no excuses about thinking Everton only offered a contract later rather than sooner: he hadn't proven himself. When he was given that chance to prove himself and took it, only then was a contract justified.
A tribunal wont do Everton any favours, I suspect.
But my view is simply this: let him go. If he doesn't want to sign, let him walk off. Get the cash for him and put it toward a player who can do a job and does want to play here.
Well yes, just as we will be compensated for the development of a young player between the ages of 16-21, a player who has made more appearances for Cheltenham and Colchester than Everton.
It's not really a case of "exploitation" but I suppose having a consistency in the standards towards young players. The decent thing to do for a young player at a club is contact the club directly and ask them how much they wanted. While Leeds got a 1 million or so, they wanted a lot more. We were able to exploit a loophole in the system that exists that 16 year olds can't sign a pro contract.
We breached no rules, and as you say Leeds were compensated, but we got him at a knockdown price due to the loophole. Likewise a loophole exists if players are out of contract. Clubs can go directly to the player and negotiate with him, and again we will receive compensation for developing him, thought it will be a lot less than we'd have liked. Subjectively this is annoying for Evertonian's but objectively we are merely being screwed over due to a loophole in the same way Leeds were. I think it's inconsistent to view it in any other way.
Garbutt is highly thought of by Martinez. I think the club should have got his contract tied up last season though, if that was the case. We waited until his final season, and we are always susceptible to this situation. He wants regular football which I think is fair enough. The club should have offered him a contract before this season and then we'd be able to move him on our terms. We didn't so we lose that opportunity. Expecting Garbutt to sign, potentially jeopardising his chance of first team football would be a very foolish move on his part. Yes it's shitty on his part but ultimately the club have let that situation develop.
And yes I agree with you. Even if we only get a couple of million for him with a sell on fee, we are fortunate it's an area of the pitch we are greatly covered in. We will move on as will he.
