There is a difference between an investment a

It’s transfer deadline day, so there’s a strong chance that whatever I say will be out of date before you finish reading. So read a bit quicker will you.

Some people actually take time off work for deadline day. Until 11pm tonight, Sky Sports will have reporters dispatched to various outdoor locations, from where they will deliver news that they could have garnered without leaving the studio. So we hope it keeps fine.

We look forward in particular to this evening’s traditional biannual apology for the language of local, screeninvading yahoos in Stoke.

We can also give you the following sneak preview of tomorrow’s media commentary.

Prepare for: “It’s madness ... obscene ... kicking a ball around ... nurses ... kidney machines ... paid 50 times more than the Prime Minister ... etc.”

This tut-tutting followed Paul Pogba’s recent world record transfer to Manchester United. This is understandable, after all, it’s madness ... obscene ... kicking a ball around ... nurses ... kidney machines ... paid 50 times more than the Prime Minister ... etc.

But here’s a motion for you to debate with yourself. Was United’s acquisition of Pogba for an £89m fee, plus a reported £220,000 weekly salary, any madder than Sunderland’s free signing of Valentin Roberge?

The Pogba money is defended by those who say he is an investment, whose name has bumped up United’s share price and has considerable other commercial value. He may also in time be re-sold for an even bigger fee. As a bonus he can also apparently play football.

Roberge (pictured), brought in by Di Loonio in 2013, made at a (probably conservative) guess around £20,000 per week, still seven times more than the Prime Minister. In return it should be said he brought a certain nothing to the club. He barely played, but hung around for three years trousering £3m or so, leaving recently because no one else would match his salary. Who could blame him?

We have more or less picked Roberge at ran-