Yeah, let's buy Henry and get rid of Dickov. What's that you say Mr Wenger? Several million pounds more than we could ever possibly afford? Looks like we are stuck with Dickov then. Muppet.

Cheating scumbag aside, from the commentry tonights match only serves to underscore how desperately we need another striker.

Listening to the commentry on Five live. Alan Green really doesn't like Savage.

Well, we didn't see that coming did we? I'm a bit annoyed by the prospect of losing Ferguson, I think he's a better player than some are making out (now that he's handed in his transfer request), and in tandem with Savage could have been part of one of the best central midfield pairings in the league. That said, if we can recoup a large part of the fee we paid for him it wouldn't be the end of the world; even without Ferguson our midfield is good enough to hold it's own (or will be when Savage arrives) and it will hopefully free up enough cash to buy a quality striker with a few years left in them.

We don't hate Bruce (although I don't much like him either), nor do we reserve special hatred for Birmingham City. There are many teams in the Premiership I would rather beat. I do think that this transfer business has got a bit silly, but put a lot of it down to posturing for the sake of the fans by both sides. If you are going to post on a rival message board of course you will cop for a bit of flak, it's all part of the banter. Take it with good grace, give a bit back, then advance your arguements in a reasoned manner and you will find people willing to enter into the debate. All this "I can't wait to play you lot, then you'll see" stuff comes across as trolling, which gets everyone wound up. That said, we're still going to finish above your mob.

Paragraph 2) So instead of paying you £3 million over a given period of time, we are now paying you £3 million, just over a slightly shorter period of time? Yeah, Steve Bruce should negotiate hostage situations. He got skills. Paragraph 3) Hughes wants him to join Rovers, I trust Hughes' judgement. He hasn't let us down yet. For a start, he's never tried to buy Dwight Yorke from anyone. Paragraph 4) If Yorke was an overpaid, ageing, world class player when he was here (and I would agree with everything bar the world class bit) then why did Bruce sign him? Paragraph 5) I am imagining a Ferguson / Savage midfield. It looks pretty good in my head. By way of contrast, imagine Salif Diao and David Dunn lumbering around St Andrews like a pair of fat, lost children. Now imagine a hot knife going through butter (just to be clear, Diao / Dunn are not represented by the knife in this analogy). Enjoy the rest of the season.

Seems to me that very little about this transfer has been the decision of Birmingham City. You didn't want to sell him, but he's still getting sold. When you started mucking us about, all Sparky had to do was make it known that he had "virtually given up on signing Savage" and it brought you scampering back to the table. The fact is we've played City like a fiddle from the start; it's a bit late to start trying to save face now.

Is there no way we can appeal? Every match report I've read suggests that, the dismissals aside, D'Urso had a shocker. It seems to me that clubs are being unfairly punished (twice) for what one article in the Guardian called "the game's dubious demand for consistency at the expense of common sense". First we lose players to suspension due to ever greater numbers of cheaply given yellow cards, then the FA fines us for the same offence. Most people have said that Saturday's match was not an especially violent one, yet from the number of cards doled out you would think that it had been a pitched battle from start to finish.

Thinking about our recent results, the reports of promising debuts by Nelson and Moekena, the signs that Pedersen might prove to be the sort of player we hoped he could be and the prospect of signing Savage; we are starting to look like we have the sort of depth required to stay up, at the least. We could do with hanging on to Ferguson until the end of season, then getting the best price we can for him. If he helps us climb a few places before the end of the season it might offset any drop in his value. If we do well he might even start a bidding war. We could certainly do with another striker, but if that's obvious to us then it's painfully obvious to Hughes. As is, I'm at least beginning to think beyond the prospect of relegation, so I'm happy for Hughes to try and coach a few more goals out of the strikers we have until the right player becomes available. He's proving to be quite shrewd in the transfer market, but he's proving equally good at improving a previously under performing squad. I'm almost cautiously optimistic.

Has someone been sent off?

In fairness to the bluenoses, we tapped Savage up good and proper. Is anyone really going to argue we didn't? Having said that, Brum are getting £3 million for a 30 year old who doesn't want to play for them anymore, so their noses can't be too far out of joint. Hell, our captain practically tapped himself up if reports are to be believed: "Hullo Mr Viola, could you ring Rangers and tell them I'm nae happy, the wife's nae happy, the wee bairns are nae happy, and we wannae come home. About £3 mill ought tae do the trick" "No problem Barry, I'll get right on it" Happens to every club. Well, maybe not Chelsea.

McVicar more like.

Just to (sort of) try and keep the thread on track, Savage and Ferguson would improve our midfield; Savage instead of Ferguson would weaken it considerably. I find the prospect of selling Ferguson back to Rangers a baffling one. He is one of our better players, and one of the most expensive signings currently in the squad. Rangers are millions in debt, whereas we are (at least in comparison) financially sound. As others have said, Rangers are a bigger fish yes, but in a much smaller pond.

What on earth is one of them ?????? My "leet speak" is a little rusty, but I think it translates roughly as "ultimate noob". Apparently being one of these is a very bad thing indeed.

I feel we would have had a rather stronger case with regard to the actions of Birmingham City during the Dunn transfer, but that's not the point. Like it or not, tapping up is part and parcel of the modern game. Every club does it, every club (bar a tiny super-rich majority) suffers as a result of it at some time or another. When it's their own club doing the tapping, fans are, unsurprisingly, more than happy to let it slide. when it's one of their own players getting tapped by someone else; obviously it's a shameful practice which their club would never stoop too. All this "well you tapped up player X", "yeah, well you tapped up player Y before that" is naive, self deluding nonsense. Save the faux righteous indignation for the managers and the players; they have to pretend there is a veneer of respectability surrounding the transfer market, even if we the fans know that ain't the case. It's all a bit like American wrestling really, and some of you seem to be trying very hard to persuade yourselves that what you are seeing and hearing is actually the truth.

In which case they are welcome to 45% of the £0.00 I will be spending (or rather not spending) on a ticket for a game I would otherwise have attended. Even at the ST price I'm not paying £20 to line the pockets of some greedy, mediocre "Championship" outfit.

Easy 2 - 0 to Rovers, no problem.

Can't comment on how we played, but it's annoying to lose at the death, and from a set piece; the sort of bad habits that Hughes has been trying to rectify. Especially as Solano is about 3 ft short. p.s. Own up. Who let the barcode in?

Now you're talking. "Any Minute Now" was one of the best tunes I've heard all year.

Perhaps you could explain why you are using the death of 125,000 people (at the very least) to make a cheap philosophical point?

I for one am not singling the US Govt. out for particular shame. If you read my original post I said that every government in a position to help*, and particularly those best able to help, had failed to pledge sufficient funds in response to this disaster. Call me cynical, but of course they did. Governments are slower and more calculating than people. They will gauge the extent of the tragedy as it unfolds, probably pledging larger amounts of money as the death toll rises, but never more than is strictly necessary to ensure the maximum political gain, and not enough. This is why I argue that governmental responses should be irrelevant. This is a global tragedy, why wait for your leaders to falter their way to doing the right thing? So what if it's just giving money? I give £X to the Red Cross, X being whatever amount i wish to give. If that £X can make a markedly beneficial difference in a single other human beings life then surely that's a good thing? Of course the areas most badly effected need volunteers to help them. Doctors. Nurses. Engineers. Dedicated people with practical, useful skills. The thing is, I work in an office. No matter how well intentioned, my wizardry with Microsoft Excel isn't going to help much right now, so I give £X, and hope it does some good. Sorry if I'm a bit tetchy about this. There is a TV in my office which is always (for reasons beyond my control) tuned to Sky News, and I've been watching it for 12 hours. It has been relentless, apocalyptic imagery all day. *Except India, who despite being effected by the tsunami, were the first to get aid to Sri Lanka, and should be recognised for that.

You and I both have mortgages, millions of people no longer have homes. I am really struggling to see the difficulty in this concept. As for your trillions of dollars of debt? You spent it, doubtless you enjoyed it. Elect a President brave enough to raise taxes and pay up. These people never had the luxury of trillions of dollars to spend, on account of them being some of the poorest nations on Earth. This is a global catastrophe in every sense. How can you be so insular in your reasoning?

Putting my bleeding, heart shaped liberal hat on for a second. Western governments should give more because...well, because we have more to give. Putting to one side the fact that we have climbed to the topmost rung of the worlds economic ladder largely on the backs of the third world. Ignoring the fact that we are happy to spend millions more on exerting our will, through military might if we deem fit, than we would ever consider spending on humanitarian relief. We are rich, they are poor, and in desperate need of help. We are in a position to help them, and (to my mind at least) under a moral obligation to do so. Everything else in the debate amounts to bull**** pedantry.

Before everyone shoots me down in flames for the following comparison, I realise it isn't a like for like one, and make it only to illustrate the totally screwed up priorities currently being exhibited by all our leaders. The UK, US and other members of the "coalition of the willing" have spent billions of pounds on instigating regime change in Iraq, ostensibly for the good of the Iraqi people and in order to make the world a safer place. Whatever your personal opinion on the war in Iraq, one thing is undeniable; it was an expensive business for which we, the taxpayers, will ultimately have to foot the bill. In contrast, the people of South East Asia are currently facing the greatest humanitarian crisis of modern times. The death toll has already risen to more than 100,000. In the weeks and months ahead that figure is likely to eclipse 1 million as disease and starvation take hold. The West's response? Pocket change (in international terms) and vague promises of aid and assistance. As stated at the start of the post, in many respects this is an unfair comparison, but all I am saying is that as a tax-payer I would be far happier seeing my money going to disaster relief than to the continued funding of the "war on terror". The paltry sums being pledged by Western governments in response to this disaster (and they are all paltry, for those looking to do a little mud flinging) only confirm my long held belief that we are led by idiots. Can anyone really say that this is a surprise? In response to American; in one sense you are quite correct, America should not be castigated to a greater or lesser degree than any other Western power for it's wholly inadequate response, because every governmental response thus far has been wholly inadequate. However, telling Phillipl that unless he is on the ground he can't be helping is wrong. As Colin says, sod the official response. Donate what you can to the Red Cross, Oxfam, whoever. Even if it's just a fiver it will help. If some of you took the chips off your shoulders it might speed the process considerably. This political squabbling is as unseemly as it is counterproductive.

Been catching up on some of the best Scandinavian music from the last couple of years (as you do). Sigur Ros, Mum and Emiliana Torrini - wierd downtempo Icelandic loveliness.