One angle that may have been covered but I don't recall is this:
On a pure football basis, getting O'Brien and 10-12m for Berge is a decent deal on it's own.
But more than that, it removes the whole circus we have to go through every window with Berge being linked away. That can't be good for the player or the squad or the management for that matter plus you're only kicking the can down the road by 6 months and there then comes the genuine danger you could lose him for nothing.
We also desperately need a long term replacement for Fleck.
O'Brien's energy could also help Norwood's longevity as he'll be the one going up and down while Norwood may be a bit more lateral, and pinging.
I don't see Berge lengthening Norwood's career. At times we will have a midfield three, others a midfield two and three forward players but less so if we go up. I'm not convinced defensively Berge is as strong when we don't have the ball as what we need.
I would argue Berge's best position could be on the right of a 4-2-3-1, but we don't play this system.
It is a shame this has come about in the way it has i.e. being under embargo, but Hecky swapping Berge for O'Brien plus cash is legitimate move and would potentially leave to us owning the two key midfield spots. It would then also free up Doyle to play a little further forward. Easy to forget that whilst he has become viewed as better defensively then McAtee,. When at Cardiff he created more chances per 90 than anyone. Him playing with more attacking freedom could be a very good thing in the end. How much would City want in the end for him? 8-10m? If you end up with Doyle, O'Brien and a few million for Berge, is that such a bad deal?