David

And if we have a sell-on clause in any deal with Celtic then we'll benefit from such a move down the line. If we haven't got such a clause in any deal with Celtic then that's a massive own goal by the club I feel.

I think what's perhaps surprised me the most has been the apparent lack of interest from clubs down south to meet the £3 million valuation. I, like many others, assumed that there'd be a good three or four clubs who'd be willing to pay that for him. It seems there's been a lot of "interest" but no actual serious bids.

It's still early on in the transfer window, plenty of time for deals to be done.

Of course they do. In instances where a club actively doesn't have to sell, but has intimated that it could be convinced to sell to the highest bidder. Obviously that doesn't apply to us in this situation though.

I think that's what Turnbull wanted, but he was offered in the region of £12,000 per week if the reports of similar wages to those initially given to Wanyama and Van Dijk are to be believed.

Exactly. I think it's mainly Celtic fans who are coming away with the agent shite, in an attempt to square away in their mind the very notion that someone would actually knock back the famous Glasgow Celtic. It can't be the player who's knocking them back obviously, as every Scottish born footballer dreams of pulling on the Hoops, and would walk to Parkhead to sign a contract with them. Has to be the agent being greedy, giving the impressionable young lad some bad advice, surely? Scuppering his clients chance at a move of a lifetime to try and wring some more pounds out of a bigger deal down south.

I'm reading a lot of stuff in the media that seems to be following the line of the agent knocking back deals and suchlike. It's worth remembering that the agent actually works for Turnbull, not the other way around. I know there's a weird misconception that these evil, sneaky agents are all taking advantage of these poor, unfortunate souls who don't know any better, forcing them to take deals they don't want to sign and being "in their ear" about this and that. Anything the agent knocked back will have been done entirely in consultation with his client. They are one and the same in these discussions. If the agent knocks back a deal from Celtic, he's doing so at the behest of Turnbull.

Because you're making it sound as though the benefits are all one-way, which isn't the case at all. Any player we bring in on loan is obviously recruited on the basis that our manager believes he's better than anyone we currently have, or could get otherwise, to play that position. A better player means a better team, which hopefully means a higher league placing, which means more money (although apparently the extra money from league placings doesn't really matter to some fans). Does having a player out on loan benefit the parent club? Of course it does, otherwise what's the point in them doing it? Everyone benefits theoretically. The player gets game time, the parent club sees their player get some experience, and the loan club gets a player that the manager believes will improve the side. What I am against is loaning in absolute fucking lumps like Conor Sammon. If a potential loan player isn't good enough to play for the first team and add some quality that we don't already have then there's no point in doing such a deal. But if Celtic, Rangers, or any other club for that matter, are looking to loan out a player and our manager thinks "yeah, that lad could do us a real turn. He's of the quality we'd likely never get otherwise and he can improve our team" then I'd have no issue at all with the manager sounding the player out.

But, surely the asking price would be the same? The window has literally been open for a few days, so there's plenty of time for a deal to be done. If and when he goes anywhere, it'll be for the amount the club mentioned.

Wouldn't we be getting the benefit of said player for a season though? I don't understand this weird mentality that we're just developing a player for another club. We'd be gaining from having a player that the manager would consider a good signing in our team for a season, wouldn't we?

Wait, what?

Why does it always have to be someone getting grief? It has fuck all with anyone "taking note" and everything to do with the club accepting an offer they deem to be fair (and it's an offer most fans saw as fair before they knew it was Celtic paying it) and the option then being put to the player. He can then choose to either move, or not. It's no one's fault, and no one has to "take note" of fuck all.

They'll have a valuation of what they believe he's worth, both fee-wise and wages-wise. If it doesn't work for the player then fair play, no harm, no foul. I don't think it's arrogance, it's probably that David believes he can get a better deal elsewhere, and that's his decision.

Quite. Anything that his representatives ask for, discuss or accept will be done on the players orders and knowledge. It could very well be that he's been curious to see exactly what Celtic were going to offer, and has thought "Yeah, I can probably better that elsewhere." He strikes me as a savvy, mature operator does Turnbull. He's no mug.

His representatives work for him. They won't be deciding squat without his approval.