Pekhart was only so good in our academy because of his size, that isn't the case with our youngsters anymore, they are all purely their for their technique and reading of the game. Coulibaly had a good under 17 WC, but never looked that good in our academy.
It remains to be seen whether we are reaping the benefits. Kane, Bentaleb and Mason we seem to have just stumbled into because we don't have much choice to play them, many would argue Benteleb and Mason aren't good enough. We have Ryan Fredricks but we're looking to bring in another right back.
Levy's earning a good couple of million out of it, so not too shabby. I think this is a good project for them, if they had a better project they would have sold a while ago.
How they got their break into the first team is irrelevant when discussing the academy, as it's just their job to prepare them for first team football, which they have done. If the academy made them good enough, but the 1st team manager didn't play them, that's out of the academies hands.
It's entirely relevant, if you're looking to make the academy the foundation of success you must have a philosophy that is based on giving youth a chance and be patient. Otherwise the academy is waste of time. That means hiring a coach who will do that, that should be made clear during the interview process.
Townsend many people want to see gone, I would give him at least another season, Carroll I like again some people don't think he's good enough he hasn't had a chance to prove himself though. Mason, Bentleb, Kane I've already commented on. All the rest are potential like Marney, Caskey, Jackson, Parrett and many others it's a completely different thing to become a first team regular.
I agree that if you're looking to make the academy the foundation of success, then yes, the route to the 1st team is absolutely part of it, my point was, just because the 1st team coach doesn't have the balls to play them, doesn't mean the academy is a failure. BTW, I believe that is one of the reasons Poch was brought in.
but you obviously got it SM 
Obviously the shortest, and simplest answer would have been 'Look for a billionaire'. And that's probably the more likely thing to happen. Wouldn't have made much of a thread though... (I suspect many who did attempt to read the OP would have preferred that answer though!)
This is just ideas at how to attempt to bridge the gap in the long term assuming things haven't changed.
Picking out some of those other points, most of them pretty fair, I'd say:
- Of course there is a balancing act to be had, you need a blend of youth/experience. I did mention for this year that Carrick is someone I'd love to have sitting in midfield and offering his calmness and keeping things ticking. The aim for a bigger % of the squad to have come through the ranks is a long term one, I'm not just talking about next year or two. You'd imagine/hope that if we do get to that point where a large majority is homegrown, squad management etc. has ensured that the balance has been struck and we still have say 30 year old Kane's/Bentaleb's/or whoever (could be a signing) that are here to provide experience.
- As far as 'predicting the future' and pondering whether we can compete regularly at the top end, as I said its a long term process. I'm assuming things aren't changing in terms of ownership and merely offering possible solutions to overcome it rather than just accepting our lot. The only way we are getting multiple world class players in our squad any time relatively soon in that case is if they have come through the ranks. If we do that then they could propel us upwards, and then we have more money long term and can hang on to them and add quality then where needed. Remember we also have the new stadium, which is going to put pressure on us whether Levy and co. admit it or not, and so this approach is arguably the right one to ease financial pressures of balancing the team & stadium.
- As for style of play I get what you are saying. I more forsee overall principles of how the team sets up (can be counter attacking, long ball, posession, high pressing etc.) and those shown on a consistent basis. As I said, I'd like to see formational flexibility though and an ability to change approach if required. Obviously there are games where you might want to shut up shop and defend, others where you think you can catch teams out by being a bit more direct. That's where the Head Coach, and where I said I place more importance on them being a tactician, comes into it.
