David

Nothing is certain until the contract is signed and the deal is confirmed.

I don't think we can get a sell-on fee if the player is leaving under freedom of contract.

Of course not, we're a club who operate in the market of taking chances on guys like Gorrin, hoping we hit a jackpot every now & then and manage to find someone who's a good player and who's happy to then remain with the club for longer and improve their career before moving on. We'll win some, we'll lose some, and our batting average as far as financial return on such players isn't too bad at the moment. It's part of an overall business model that's seen us bring in some decent coin of late.

He already is according to certain elements of the Scottish media. Mark Guidi was punting the "lifelong Celtic fan" line a few nights back on the radio.

It would have been insanity to offer Gorrin a two year deal last season when he first joined us. He was coming to us after playing 12 games for a Romanian Premier League side.

If I was given the choice of maybe playing against a top side or two in Europe if my team made it past 105 qualifiers first, or playing against some of the best clubs in Europe, against some of the best players in the world on a regular basis I know what I'd be choosing. As I said, it could be that he simply doesn't quite have the confidence in his own abilities, which is a shame. Or, whisper it, maybe he's not as highly thought of as we all assumed. There was hardly the influx of bids for him that most of us assumed would be incoming. No doubt after a few good years at Celtic we'll be told how he's one of the best midfielders in Europe and that some huge clubs are watching him, before he eventually signs for Norwich or Southampton.

It wasn't but a week ago that most people were saying he'd likely not be a shoe-in for regular first team football at Celtic. I still think that's the case. In fact, if you look at Celtic's midfield and compare it with Norwich's midfield I think Celtic have the better players. I also don't buy this notion that playing a few games in Europe for Celtic is more of a selling point than playing against some of Europe's best on a regular basis. I had this same discussion with a Celtic supporting mate this morning. He said "Aye, but Norwich can't offer European football. Imagine playing against one or two of the biggest teams in Europe depending on if we get to the group stages and who we get in the draw." Some of the biggest teams in Europe? Like Liverpool, Manchester City, Spurs, Manchester United, Arsenal, and Chelsea? You mean the teams he'd be lining up against during a regular season in England? The same teams that Celtic would hope to get in the draw should they make it to the group stages of the Champions League? Unless the boy has went down there and quickly realised that he's not got what it takes at the moment to make a dent at that level I find this to be a strange situation. A move to Celtic is seen as a potential stepping stone to the big time of the Premiership by many players. Turnbull had the chance to bypass the stepping stone and go straight to the big time, working with a top, up & coming coach in Farke, earning more money, and getting the chance to test yourself against some of the best in the game on a near weekly basis. Even if he went to Norwich and it didn't work out, and he left in a few years time, he'd more than likely come out of the experience as a much better footballer than he will be if he stays in Scotland as part of a club that basically steamrollers 99% of the competition. He'll now go to Celtic, and if he does really well he may eventually earn a move to a lower end Premiership club....like Norwich? Yeah, fuck knows what he's thinking, but good luck to the lad whatever he does.

At the end of the day there's no kit that's going to please everyone. I like this seasons away kit, not so much the home kit.

Exactly. It may take him a bit of time to break through to starting eleven, but I think he's got the ability to do it. I also don't think that £3 million is quite as piddling an amount as some up here seem to think. Clubs like Norwich aren't really paying that for a guy who they won't use.

Will it be available sans sponsor is the main question. A sponsor would ruin the fuck out of that away shirt.

It's just you I think. We shouldn't be mentioning Celtic in any statements regarding Turnbull now, they're out of the picture.

Incredibly, their delusion knows no bounds. I've read a few comments this morning on various outlets that the reason he'll end up going to Norwich or somewhere similar is because Celtic have taken their deal off the table. Astounding.

I've always preferred Ipswich to Norwich if I'm honest, but this would be the ideal fit for young Turnbull on the surface of it. A forward-thinking, exciting manager in Daniel Farke, a few Scottish lads in the squad already, and the chance to play in the Premiership for a club who aren't really expected to do much. When you look at their current squad you have to believe that he could get some serious game time under his belt as well, if they decide to keep him and not loan him out.

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.