David

I sense that you're allowing emotions to cloud your judgement on this, which is fair enough. I'd rather he went elsewhere too, but the realist in me knows that the club are doing what's best for us as a club. As far as a loan player coming in from Celtic, if Robinson wants him and he can add something to our team next season then I have no issues with it happening.

With all due respect, that's why you're not our CEO. You don't have to like someone or a particular company in order to do business with them. It's purely business, and companies and individuals who can't stand each other partake in business deals regularly. It really comes down to this. First of all, is the financial package acceptable to the club? And second, if there's any player being offered on loan, is it a player the manager believes could improve our side next season? If the answer is yes on both fronts, then you do the deal, irrespective of their track record of being bawbags.

You're being ridiculous.

That's true, but if it's a choice between refusing a player who could come here, plug a gap and do a really good job for 99% of our season just in case we meet Celtic in a cup game, or taking the player and incorporating him into a side that helps us finish 6th instead of 8th then I'd be happy enough to trust the managers judgement.

Well, I don't quite think that would be our main aim really, would it? We'd only take one of their players if we believe he could do us a turn next season. His development would be a by-product of us benefiting from having him in our team. From my perspective it would be like bringing in a Tom Aldred on loan. I didn't see that signing as us helping his parent club out, I saw that as us getting a player that we needed for a season.

Have they confirmed all of that though? The official club Tweet simply said that the club had agreed a fee with Celtic for the sale of David Turnbull. I've read amounts and talk of "achievable add-ons" in the media, but have the club officially confirmed or denied those stories? I know Burrows has said that the amount we receive will change the club forever and so forth, but again, has he actually confirmed an amount? I'm genuinely asking this, because I've not had time to follow everything that we've seen in the press due to work.

I don't think it hurts to let potential other suitors know that there's an offer in.

It's worth remembering that at the moment there's nothing to confirm, as the deal hasn't been done. The club can't really be making statements beyond what they already have regarding a transfer that's not finalised.

Those youngsters just need to accept the fact that they're probably nowhere near the player that Turnbull is. It's not as if Celtic are akin to Chelsea here, they've given youngsters a chance if they think they're good enough. McGregor and Forrest are two examples of that.

Regardless of where he goes, it looks like we're getting the much-touted £3 million, and then some add-ons apparently. That's going to change the game for us as a club, and that's something that's more important than one player.

Unless, of course, we agreed a fee in principle with the player when he signed his new deal? I wouldn't be surprised if the situation is that any club who bid a pre-agreed amount are then given permission to speak to the player.

If he'd stayed with us the best he could probably have hoped for was a League One side eventually, so it'll all work out in the end I guess.

Probably because we have agreed with the player on a fee where we'd allow him to talk to other clubs? Maybe Celtic are the first to reach that fee?

I think there's more to it than just wanting to punt our best youngsters. Personally, I was pleasantly surprised when he signed that new deal with us. I assumed he'd have waited until the end of the season and seen what offers he had. I've seen in mentioned that there may have been a "gentleman's agreement" of sorts regarding what size of bid would trigger us allowing him to go. We can't knock back that kind of dough, plus the lad may very well fancy moving on and trying his luck on a bigger stage.

He'll be 24 years old by the time his contract expires with Rangers, and he'll likely have no trouble finding a lower Premier or upper Championship club in Scotland afterwards. He'll also have pocketed a decent wedge in the process.

I'd wager that the players you mention are very much on the clubs radar. Until they're linked with the likes of Sunderland and Hearts, of course, at which point the chances of him coming here are pretty slim.

Are we happy to press reset every season? Unfortunately, if a players contract is up with us there's very little we can do to force them to stay, is there? Unless you're suggesting we offer these unknown quantities a two or three year deal rather than the usual one year offering?

I'm not quite sure why the media keep beating the "Turnbull to Celtic" angle outside of it being good clickbait for the masses. Anyone who's even had a slight gander at how Celtic are operating at the moment knows they're not going to spend serious dough this summer, especially not on a player who's position they're looking fairly well-stocked for at the moment. Any sensible reactions I've seen from their fanbase has run along the lines of "if he was available for a million to a million and a half then try to get him, if not we move on and try to buy for positions that we badly need to fill."

It's a no-lose for the club then really, isn't it? Unless he's absolutely adamant that he doesn't want to stay, of course.

That shirt on the right reminds me of the black & grey abomination we had a few years back. Think a few folk seemed to like it, but I fucking hated it.

No one is saying you can't discuss it if you want to, but take it to the General Football section, or even Compost Corner. Let's get back to discussing our best player.

I think most fans would agree, but those running the club need to deal with the financial reality of it all, and the sad truth is we can't afford to dismiss millions of pounds. Let's just hope he's still here for another season. I wouldn't mind seeing us get this season out of him and then sell for around the £2 million mark with add-ons to a club down south in the summer if need be.

It's not quite as simple as "just no'ing" I'm afraid. We can gamble on Turnbull doing really well this season and the offers being higher next summer, but we're also going to have to take into account the fact that his deal will be closer to running out by then, which is when traditionally clubs see offers for players start to drop in amount. And yet again, the market will play a part in the next window as well. If we stick a £4 million tag on him, knocking back offers of half that, we could be sitting there "no'ing" until his deal expires and he walks away for fuck all.

As I mentioned earlier, the market will determine what he's worth, not us. We can say that we're not accepting a penny less than £4 million all we like, but if no bugger is willing to pay that then he's not worth it. It's incredibly naive to think we can just say "well, Hibs and Dundee United got X amount, so that means we're going to get Y amount" as it doesn't work that way. The market will vary depending on the window. Are clubs looking for a player in his position? Are there a lot of other options out there who can play said position? Are the clubs who are interested in a financial position to pay the kind of money we want? It'll depend on a number of factors, but it's far more complicated than we think.

Indeed, the Scottish media seemed pretty high on Ariyibi. I'm sure Derek Ferguson was waxing lyrical about him on the radio a few weeks back.