Decent summary, but on the Brooks and Hirst issues, you've been inconsistent
Just to add consistency :
They lost their best young prospect
We lost our best young prospect.
They lost Hirst because the opportunities weren't there for him and he chose to leave to get opportunities at a lower level (If we take his move on face value)
The difference is that despite losing Brooks, without getting further into discussion whether it was right or wrong, lets say the sale was done with justification because the financial offer matched our valuation, rather than making the sale for the sake of falling into line with financial restrictions. Upon losing Brooks however, and this is the key, we have brought in a player which was highly sought in this division and potentially a better prospect than Brooks (purely based on the fact that he's played first team football for the Champions League finalists at such a young age), albeit it on loan for this season.
Summary, we took a good business decision on our young prospect for this season.
Some would say its a short term view, others may say that its short term planning with a longer term view on the overall business.