The idea may be regarded by many as heresy but, amongst my acquaintances, I know of no one who disagrees with the notion that Spurs and Arsenal should share a ground.

I can't put it better than Patrick Barclay does in today's Sunday Telegraph, not one word of which would I dissent from. He even suggests my own pet idea, that the ground should be in King's Cross:

When the Tottenham chairman, Daniel Levy, recently spoke of extending the ground's capacity to 48,000, he must have known he was flogging a horse that was not only dead but dog-food; there are simply not enough council-tax payers in London to pay for the infrastructural improvements required to make a journey to or from White Hart Lane pleasant. In this sense, Spurs have indeed been left behind. Any fan who fits the footballing definition of ''middle class''- in other words who is capable, when sober, of rising marginally above the savage - will know that a car, due to congestion, about as much use as a powerboat in the Sahara and that, once you have been disgorged by public transport, there is nowhere to dine or browse or engage in any recreation other than trying not slither on discarded trays of pale,fat chips. Down the side streets there may be cosy homes, but the face of the Tottenham High Road scowls.

Much as I like the stadium, I do not think Spurs can afford stay there. Meanwhile Arsenal, though their environment is more congenial, are already planning to leave Highbury for a 60,000-capacity place nearby. So is this another instance of Arsenal getting it right while Spurs, who will next year effect their fifth change of management since Arsene Wenger moved into Highbury, get it wrong? I am not so sure.Arsenal have a deserved reputation, based on developments such as the new North Bank, for doing things properly and the scale of the Ashburton Grove project reflects this. Their sense of style is admirable. Yet,every time we hear how the figures stack up, I am reminded of that game in which you keep carefully adding to the stack wooden blocks until eventually the whole thing topples over. Football is almost as risky an affair and,when clubs budget for continued success, as Arsenal seem to be doing, they are gambling.

So how do Arsenal play safe while Spurs progress? You may have guessed the answer by now. Move in together. It will not happen in the foreseeable future. It may never happen. It truly should, and I cannot think of a more suitable method of invigorating the desolate, seedy environs of King's Cross railway station than by giving the North London neighbours a more central home, a showcase for the game, logistically convenient, architecturally imaginative and perhaps capable of adaptation to a variety of the capital's other needs. Arsenal and Spurs could then grow separately; all they would need a joint property company to create and administer an edifice that might command the respect of even such distinguished visitors as United.

This would be infinitely preferable to their sharing the new Wembley. But even that might be preferable to their separate prospects. Certainly Tottenham's. So let Spurs and their fans start the thinking afresh.The alternative is to stay small - but stop moaning about it, because it is just the price to be paid for tradition.

Meanwhile, I'm off this afternoon to watch Spurs beat Man U (without the nauseating cry baby Rio Ferdinand, it seems) 3-0.

UPDATE: A man can but dream...The northerners won 2-1. Drug assisted, doubtless.