Breaking News: Politician Keeps Promise...

David Cameron's decision to veto EU treaty changes aimed at tackling the Eurozone Crisis have provoked concern and criticism from many at home and abroad. It is true that his actions could well lead to Britain being even more isolated from the rest of Europe than it already is. If the new-look treaty proves to be a success, and the Euro goes from strength to strength, this could have disastrous consequences. Yet the chances of that being the case look slim, as the changes fails to address any of the real issues behind the crisis.

In proposing budgetary control, and increased regulation and taxation on the financial sector, the amendments seem to be very much a case of shutting the joint chequebook after Greece has spent all the money. They provide solutions that may have been useful in preventing the crisis from occurring in the first place, but offer very little in the way of solving the problems that the EU is facing now. It is all well and good proposing hefty penalties for those who break deficit restrictions, but in the current climate, it's difficult to see how any penalty handed out to the struggling economies could possibly improve the situation in which they find themselves. Moreover, there is no attempt to address the underlying problem of the single currency - that it has brought together countries of different economic levels in such a way that the poorer nations are reliant on financial support from their wealthier neighbours, and those neighbours, in turn, are reliant on the survival of their economically weaker allies. It is already well-documented that the EU simply cannot allow Greece to default on its loans, and thus must continue to fork out billions of Euros to keep it afloat. This is not an issue that will simply disappear with time, but is a fundamental flaw in the system. Most worryingly, with Italy and Spain remaining alarmingly close to the edge of the financial abyss, the outlook is bleak should another nation require the kind of assistance that has been handed out to Greece, Portugal or Ireland.

It is true that David Cameron has taken a big gamble, and that, either way, he cannot really win. If, in the best-case scenario, the treaty changes are a success and the Euro goes from strength to strength, Britain will surely be left isolated in the shadow of the resulting European economic superpower. And if, in the worst case, the Euro does fail (which, at this point, looks considerably more likely), his veto will no doubt be blamed for contributing to its demise, and Britain will still face another financial crisis. But that crisis will not be as bad as the one we would be facing if we had signed up to these changes and the Euro had failed anyway. The revisions to the Treaty, in effect, tie the eurozone closer together, in such a way that if one nation goes down, all will be brought down trying to save it. At the same time, by failing to address the real crux of the problems facing the single currency, the amendments have not made this outcome any less likely. By remaining on the outside, Britain is at least safeguarding itself from being dragged down along with them, though whether it would be strong enough to withstand the after-effects is another matter entirely. Thus, faced with a very difficult decision, and under considerable pressure from his European counterparts, it would appear that the Prime Minister has stuck to his promise not to sign up to anything that would not be in Britain's interest. For that, at least, he should be commended.

Mylo Xyloto...

It's been a bloody long time since I've written anything on here, but the release of Coldplay's new album this week has prompted me to do so.

I genuinely think this could be their best album ever. From the electrifying 'Hurts Like Heaven' down to the slower 'Up in Flames' or 'Us Against the World', this really is Coldplay at their absolute best. 'Paradise' is reminiscent of massive hits like 'Clocks' and 'Speed of Sound', while the addictive 'Charlie Brown' gets better every time I listen to it. They have teamed up with Rihanna to produce 'Princess of China', potentially opening up a whole new fanbase in the process, and this might even suggest that, like with Jay-Z on their last tour, Rihanna may share their gigs (I somehow doubt she would accept being the 'support' act!). True, there is no new 'Fix You' or 'The Scientist', but perhaps that's because those songs are so superb in themselves that any attempt to recreate them would be futile.

Most importantly, this album adds a vital element to the band's repertoire as a whole. Critics have branded their music as being too slow, too emotional, and, frankly, a little depressing. 'Viva La Vida' attempted, in part, to move away from this, although the decision to jointly name the album 'Death and all his Friends' rather betrayed that. But there can be no doubting that this is a faster and more upbeat Coldplay. This album is the missing link. It is the energy that some argue has been lacking from the band's earlier work. And credit to them - the critics laid down the gauntlet, and Chris, Johnny, Guy and Will have responded in breathtaking fashion. Yet crucially, they haven't been swayed by those critics into producing more mainstream music. The real brilliance of Mylo Xyloto is that it covers new ground for the band, but does so in a way that is so distinctly Coldplay. No-one else could have written these songs.

I have been excited about this album since the Glastonbury performance, where old and new songs blended together seamlessly to produce one of the greatest sets I've listened to. There was a danger, however, that the album would be a bit of an anti-climax, that the other tracks would fail to live up to those that had been selected for the festival shows. Yet any concerns were ill-founded. From beginning to end, it is a masterpiece. For those yet to listen, do so, you won't regret it. And for those who have, I hope you have enjoyed, and continue to enjoy it, as much as I do.

A Bridge Too Far - Has 'Arry Taken Us As Far As He Can?

Last night's drubbing in the Bernabeu is being treated as a shock to the system. The Sky Sports team, in particular, were stunned by our poor performance and amazed that we hadn't been able to put up more of a fight, citing Peter Crouch's sending off and Aaron Lennon's mysterious last-minute illness as the main reasons behind our incompetent display. But the truth is, the signs have been there for at least the last month, and last night's performance bore the hallmarks both of our woeful defensive display at Wolves a few weeks ago and the attacking impotence of the recent matches against West Ham and Wigan.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/04/06/article-1373932-0B7E9AF600000578-950_634x482.jpg

Now, I want to make it absolutely clear that I am both respectful of and grateful to Harry Redknapp for everything he has done so far for the club that we love. He will always, quite deservedly, be a Spurs icon for his achievements. This article is not written in anger - I am the first to hold my hands up and admit when we have been thoroughly outplayed and deserve defeat, as was the case last night. This is not a criticism of 'Arry's management per se - our resurgence over the past couple of years is due in large part to his management style, and he has got the best out of players such as BAE, Bale, Lennon, Modric, Gallas and Dawson. My concern is whether he is the right man to take us on to the next level (any successful club must always be looking to progress), based both on his managerial weaknesses (for everyone, no matter how strong their strengths, possesses weaknesses) and his obvious desire to manage England.

As regards his management style, my concern is that he is not aggressive enough, that he doesn't possess that killer instinct, and that, ultimately, he is just too much of a nice guy. Now, either this is the case, and this reluctance to kill off games is being dispersed among the players, or else each of the players themselves naturally lack that instinct (the two exceptions being Modric and Bale, both of whom have been outstanding all season, and whose heads rarely, if ever, drop until the final whistle has sounded). Either way, 'Arry, as the team's principal motivator, has got to be the man to put that right, and I can't really think of an occasion this season on which we, as a team, have shown that particular instinct, the desire not just to beat, but annihilate the opposition. One recent example springs to mind - against Wolves, while leading 3-2, a Gareth Bale shot rebounded off the post, and Aaron Lennon, rather than following up aggressively and putting the ball into the open goal, slowed down and effectively let it run out of play. Would Man Utd, or Chelsea, or any other 'big' club, have been so complacent? West Ham, for me, was another example, and Redknapp himself revealed this particular weakness after the match, when claiming that anyone disappointed with our performace that day could not be a real football fan. I'm afraid I would have to disagree - as pretty a performance as it may have been, it did not get the job done. West Ham are a relegation-threatened side, and yet we, a team with alleged top-four pretensions, were unable to put a goal past them. If Redknapp is truly satisfied by that performance, then he has just illustrated my point.

Defensively, we have never been the best side, that's for certain, and while we have put in some outstanding defensive performances this season (Fulham at home, Milan home and away, and about 60 minutes of the game at the Emirates, to name a few), we keep making basic errors. Last night, while we held our line well, we failed to press Madrid when they had the ball, giving them the time to pick out passes. Now, admittedly, Crouch's itchy feet had left us in the lurch, and consequently to press too aggressively would have created too much space for their players, but at the same time, you cannot give players of Xabi Alonso's quality time to pick a pass, because they will murder you. Now, for those who might maintain that this was the result of Crouch's sending off, I would argue that we made exactly the same mistake against Wolves - we sat back, let them come onto us, pick out their passes, and get amonst us. It's all well and good playing a rigid defensive line, but if the line is so rigid that their players simply move around it, then it no longer serves its purpose. This was illustrated by Adebayor's second goal last night, which was almost a carbon copy of Steven Fletcher's 86th minute equaliser in the Wolves game - we held our line but failed to press, allowed a cross to come in, and failed to pick up their attackers. It's a rookie mistake, and one that has cost us on a number of occasions this season. This is particularly inexcusable for a defence that trains against Crouch!

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/04/06/article-0-0B7EC4FA00000578-734_634x422.jpg

As for Redknapp's England pretensions, my concern is that if, as seems certain at the moment, he will replace Capello in a little over a year's time, would it not be better for the long-term future of the club to replace him now, while we are still in the limelight and have the opportunity to attract a top-class manager? If we fail to qualify for the Champions' League this time round, which is looking increasingly likely, then our task next season becomes even harder. Manchester City, assuming they replace us in the Top Four, will no doubt strengthen their squad, and will be an even tougher proposition next term. Chelsea have signalled their intent to remain a big player with their purchases of Torres and David Luiz, and Abramovich has promised more cash to splash in the next window. Man Utd and Arsenal are running away at the top of the league this season, and it is highly unlikely that they will have collapsed by this time next year, and Liverpool look a worryingly resurgent prospect under Kenny Dalgleish. All said, unless we can get our act together sharpish, we may have to face the fact that our current squad has peaked. Even if Bale and Modric remain with us next season, it is unlikely that they will be able to resist the lure of the Champions' League for long should we be unable to provide it, and if we are unable to replace them, which would be a tough task, the squad would surely be irrepairably weakened. And with Daniel Levy's unwillingness to put his money where his mouth is, it is unlikely that any top-class manager would be keen to take on the challenge of a Spurs side that is on the decline.

I'm not really writing this on the back of last night's result. Ultimately, we were totally outclassed by a superior side, and that's all there is to it. I'm writing this based on the past month or so of frustration, as game after game we have failed to take maximum points against the 'weaker', potentially relegation-bound sides. But last night effectively brought the past month's failures into the spotlight, and for that, perhaps it was the best thing that could have happened. For all I have written, I thoroughly hope that the team can galvanise and prove me wrong. We, and 'Arry in particular, tend to perform best when the pressure is on us - just look at our ending to last season (and the contrast of the 4-2 defeat at Burnley on the final day when 4th place was secured!). Now that the Champions' League is no longer a distraction (let's be honest, even the most optimistic fan cannot hope that we will be able to turn last night's deficit around next week), perhaps we can focus on the League and snap out of our current rut. Saturday's game against Stoke is huge - on the back of the public humiliation of last night, it could really be make or break, a test of the character of the squad and their willingness to respond to their critics. And whether or not you agree with me that 'Arry ultimately has to take responsibility for our weaknesses, surely we must acknowledge that these weaknesses exist, and that they must be soon corrected if we are to salvage anything from what, only 2 months ago, was shaping up to be such a promising season...

'These are the times that try men's souls...'

These next few weeks could be pivotal to the immediate future of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club. As we approach the end of the season, the work of the last few years, stretching back to the beginnings of the club's resurgence under Martin Jol, faces its sternest test to date.

If the club fails to qualify for next season's Champions' League, there is a genuine risk that all of that hard work could begin to unravel. Not only might we lose star names such as Gareth Bale or Luka Modric, two of the most sought-after players in the game and the linch-pins of our side, but the club would surely find it much harder to attract top-class replacements without boasting the attraction of participation in Europe's elite competition. Moreover, if Manchester City were to replace us in the Top Four, they would then be able to boast top-level competition as well as unparalled finances, which would undoubtedly make them an even tougher proposition next season. Chelsea have signalled their intent to remain at the very top of the English game through the big-money signings of Fernando Torres and David Luiz, and rumours are rife that Roman Abramovich will sanction similarly expensive acquisitions in the summer. With the exception of their rather questionable defense, Arsenal's squad, which has promised so much for so long, is finally showing signs of fulfilling its potential, and it would be a brave man who would bet on Manchester United failing to remain in the title race next season, especially given their success so far this year with what can be described as a truly threadbare squad by their own high standards. Add to that Liverpool's resurgence under Kenny Dalgleish and the wealth of talent at his disposal, and Spurs' prospects of competing for the Champions' League again next season should they fail to qualify for it this time around look bleak.

The most frustrating thing is that, should the club fail to finish in the top four this season, it will be entirely their own fault. In the six league fixtures we have played against the 'big' clubs, we have lost once (at Old Trafford), drawn three times (at home to United, City and Chelsea) and won twice (at home to Liverpool and away at Arsenal). As has been further proven by our Champions' League campaign, we tend to raise our game against the big sides. Yet we seem to display a shocking complacency against the 'smaller' clubs. We have lost at home to Wigan (a side we beat 9-1 in the corresponding fixture last season), and away at the likes of Bolton, Blackpool and West Ham. This is not to take anything away from the performances of the opposition in those games - frankly, their victories were well deserved. But it underlines our chief problem: we lack a killer instinct, and seemingly the motivation to perform against teams who, on paper, we should beat comfortably. Take our performance against Wolves yesterday: we scored three fantastic goals, and had a number of excellent attacks which created further chances. However, for the majority of the game, we sat back and allowed Wolves to play, to control possession, and ultimately to score three goals, the last being their equaliser in the 87th minute. It is also worth noting that they had another goal (wrongly) disallowed for a foul on Huerelho Gomes. Would we have been so complacent against a 'big' team? Based on our performances in such fixtures this season, I don't believe we would have been. So why can we not perform with the same commitment and energy in what are, on paper, the 'easy' games. Add to our defeats draws against the likes of Birmingham, West Brom, Wolves and Sunderland, and a pattern seems to emerge.

http://www.theeplblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/harry-redknapp-123.jpg

This complacency may prove crucial come the end of the season, and raises a further important question: can we handle the pressure, or will we ultimately choke at the critical moment? A fortnight ago, we had the chance to leapfrog Manchester City and go third in the league if we won away at Blackpool. Despite creating a host of chances, we only managed to score a 92nd minute consolation goal in a 3-1 defeat. Now, I take nothing away from Blackpool, they have been a revelation in the top flight this season, but, once again, they are a team against whom we should, on paper be winning.

This season is incredibly open. It would be wrong of me to suggest that Spurs are the only 'big' club to lose games against seemingly weaker opponents, but at the end of the day, the table doesn't lie, and we are in 5th position, no longer with sufficient games in hand to make up the points deficit. The fact that we have taken more points off the other 'big' clubs than we have conceded would also suggest that we are in our current predicament because of our relative form against the 'smaller' clubs. We are not out of the Top Four race yet, but we have certainly made it hard on ourselves. Realistically, we now need to beat Arsenal at home and Mancheter City away if we are to stand any chance of securing a second consecutive Champions' League spot, and could use getting something from trips to Stamford Bridge and Anfield. These will not be easy tasks! In addition, we cannot afford the same kind of complacency in our remaining fixtures (against West Ham, West Brom, Stoke, Blackpool, Birmingham and Wigan) that has plagued our season, and effectively need maximum points from these games. Some might argue that no side can perform to the highest standard week-in, week-out. Well, that is precisely what Spurs have to do between now and the end of the season. And a fantastic as players such as Bale and Modric have been for us this season (it would be genuinely unfair to make any criticism of their performances), they, along with the rest of the squad, need to take the attitude that if they want to be playing in the Champions' League again next season, they have to earn it. This side is so close to greatness, yet rarely has the margin between success and failure been so apparent. This is make or break time. Ultimately it will come down to desire and determination. The question is, do they want it enough? Do they care about it enough? And, above all, do they believe strongly enough in their own abilities? If I were Harry Redknapp, I would read my troops the following passage:

'These are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph'

These are the words of Thomas Paine, that were read out on the orders of George Washington to American troops before they crossed the Delaware to fight one of the pivotal battles of the Revolutionary War. All the world thought their campaign doomed to failure, but their belief in their cause and their ability carried them through the darkest of times, and they achieved one of the greatest victories in history. It would be a dramatic exaggeration to suggest that the consequences of defeat in that Revolution are the same as those currently facing Tottenham, but in relative terms, they are not far off. The club has committed itself to a course of action that will either end in victory or defeat. There can be no middle ground. It is up to the players now to rise to the challenge, and prove their worth, or else to fall by the wayside, to be swallowed up by the hazy mist of regret that has consumed generations of 'nearly-men' before them...

Washington Crossing the Delaware. http://www.metmuseum.org/explore/gw/art_gw/el_tut_img.jpg

Another scapegoat bites the dust...

The resignation of Howard Davies is a travesty. While perhaps not an innocent victim, he has been made into a scapegoat by a sensationalist media, and hung out to dry by a government so embarrassed by its links to the Gaddafi regime that it will confrom to anything that deflects attention away from itself.

Scapegoat: Howard Davies. Image courtesy of http://petersearle.com/images/howard_davies.jpg

For the exact details of the accusations levelled against Davies and the LSE, I would suggest reading the Guardian or BBC articles covering the story, which clarify them in some detail -


http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2011/mar/03/lse-director-resigns-gaddafi-scandal

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12642636

I will openly admit that my first reactions to the revelations concerning the LSE's links to the Gaddafi regime were very negative. There can be no doubting the corrupt nature of the current Libyan government - if previous years had not made this obvious enough, then the events of the last fortnight have served to underline once and for all just how unpopular Muanmar Gaddafi is, and the criminal lengths he is willing to go to in an effort to cling on to power. It is undoubtedly a black mark against the School that it should have links with such a leader, and I still hold that view.

However, from reading related articles, it seems that the LSE is far from the only institution to have links with the Libyan leader. Nor is there any indication that the University has acted in an underhand or dishonest way - its actions have been open from the start. While we might question the personal decision taken by Davies to advise the Libyan government on financial matters, he ultimately acted at the request of the British government. Why, then, are we not also chasing the resignation of those officials who proposed such an undertaking in the first place? Nor, as the Guardian has pointed out, was Britain the only country to offer such advice.

None of this would be an issue were it not for recent events in Libya. Tony Blair was famously pictured embracing Colonel Gaddafi in 2007, yet no purge was demanded upon his return to the UK. Equally, the Labour government's decision to release the Lockerbie bomber, while hugely unpopular, did not result in this kind of witch-hunt. Current events can be the only explanation for why Howard Davies is being so vilified - he is being made into the British accomplice of Gaddafi, a sensationalized story in an effort to sell newspapers and ensure a British interest in the current Libyan crisis, not to mention a blatant attempt deflect attention away from the government that encouraged his actions. His actions, while undoubtedly misguided in PR terms, appear on the face of things to be innocent enough. While personal judgement should perhaps have told him not to offer financial advice to a regime of such questionable moral integrity, this in no way implicates him in the crimes of the Gaddafi government, and he only acted at the request of the British government, so if questions of morals are being raised, the buck certainly cannot stop with him.

Best of Friends - Blair and Gaddafi. Image courtesy of http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Arts/Arts_/Pictures/2011/2/24/1298572836940/Tony-Blair-Embarks-On-Tou-007.jpg

While the LSE's decision to accept money from Saif Gaddafi and to train future Libyan civil servants certainly does little to help the School's case, it does not directly imply their support of any of the morally questionable activities of the Libyan government. If the independent report into the decision to accept the donation happens to prove that the money was accepted as some sort of bribe, then I will happily revise this statement, but as things stand, there is no evidence to prove this.

Yet the most frustrating thing is that while that none of these accusations link the LSE in any way whatsoever to the current actions of the Gaddafi regime, this is precisely what is being implied by the press. Howard Davies, and by implication the LSE, is being made into the British scapegoat for Gaddafi's actions, which is utterly absurd. Howard Davies is not the only individual, nor the LSE the only institution, to have links with the regime, and yet they are the only ones being publically vilified by the media for such links. And in doing so, the media is entirely missing the point. The events in Libya should be commanding our attention, rather than some absurd witch-hunt within our own community in an effort to cleanse our Government's current embarrassment at their recent attempts to curry favour with the Libyan despot. I'm not sure which is more despicable: the media's attempts to portray Davies and the LSE as being linked to the crimes committed by the Gaddafi regime, or the Government's decision to let them. Frankly, both should be ashamed. While I do not personally agree with Davies' actions, I do feel that they have been blown entirely out of proportion, and he is clearly not the only person, nor LSE the only institution, involved here. Support for Gaddafi evidently ran/runs much deeper than one University, and the media's apparently successful attempts to make an example of Davies and the LSE completely fail to reflect this. But then again, it always has been easier to single out one man or one organization for blame, and declare them unique, than to take the deeper and undoubtedly more painful route of questioning our societal values as a whole...

And the Bafta for the Most Ridiculous Political Scandal goes to...

Oh Silvio, you just couldn't make this up...

For those who haven't heard, that bastion of political correctness and shining example of democracy in action, Silvio Berlusconi, is to stand trial. For sleeping with a prostitute. Who was underage. And then allegedly attempted to get her out of police custody for a separate offence. Because he thought she was the grand-daughter of another world leader.

Wait, it gets better... His trial is to be presided over by three female judges, and if convicted, he could face up to fifteen years in prison. Now, it is obviously not my place to say whether he's guilty or not - let's leave that decision to what is clearly an unbiased legal panel. But we need only consider his previous record, which includes allegations (proven?) of fraud, and a wealth of testimony from women young enough to be his grandchildren about his frequently successful attempts to seduce them, to get the impression that there may be some factual basis to these current accusations.

Oh, the benefits of high office... Image taken from the Daily Telegraph, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/2971255/Silvio-Berlusconi-keeps-an-eye-on-the-new-Miss-Italy.html

To be honest, part of me wishes Berlusconi was British. I mean, don't get me wrong, our politicians aren't exactly saints, and they've produced many an amusing story in the last few years, but none manage to defy moral and political boundaries on such a frequent basis as Berlusconi. The closest we've got is a clip of Boris Johnson discovering live on camera that his wife had changed the locks to their house, moments after having told reporters gathered outside that, despite allegations of him having an affair, their relationship was as good as ever. Yet even Boris knows when he's done wrong, and is smart enough to concede this publically when evidence of his errors emerge. Compare that to Berlusconi who, when this story initially broke, replied to a packed conference hall with something along the lines of "Well, yes, but it's better than being gay, eh?!" What. A. Moron. Then again, if he was British, we'd probably be complaining less about the fact that he'd slept with an underage prostitute and more about the fact that he'd attempted to claim it on expenses.

While many Italians will hope that, even if he's not convicted, the media frenzy surrounding the trial might at least force Berlusconi to resign and allow Italian politics to regain some sort of respect and dignity (not that it ever really had any to begin with...), comedians around the globe will be praying that he survives intact, because if he does go, satire will have lost a loyal and devoted friend...

An Ode to Music...

Victor Hugo once said, "Music expresses that which cannot be put into words and cannot remain silent." Never a truer sentiment were said. I've never met someone who doesn't enjoy music of some description. That is an incredible thing, because it means that, for all our individualities, our different personalities, our different cultures and languages, for all our backgrounds, we can all be linked by this passionate expression of emotion. Some find it through rock, others through pop, through rap, R&B, opera or classical or the countless number of other musical styles, but whichever particular brand is the catalyst for you, music is virtually unique in its ability to evoke emotion in everyone.

Gigs demonstrate this unifying experience more than anything else. I'm lucky enough to have seen, in my opinion, some pretty great bands play some pretty iconic songs. One incident that springs to mind is seeing Oasis play Wonderwall, in the middle of which the sound system cut out, only for the crowd, with barely the slightest of pauses, to carry on singing all the same. And Noel, Liam et al. just stood there on stage, watching in awe, as 60,000 people around Wembley stadium belted out the lyrics to one of the most popular songs of our generation.

I love music, and have a crazy range of musical taste - anything in between Tchaikovsky and Metallica, and you're likely to find something that I'll enjoy. Yet for me, everything pales in comparison to U2, and particularly to seeing them live. Among my friends, that's often a controversial choice - Bono, despite his best efforts, is hardly the World's favourite person, and I can understand how his constant preaching can get on people's nerves. Personally, I'd like to think that he's a genuine guy, but who knows. Either way, he is the lead singer of what is, without question, my favourite band. U2 are music for me, because they're the first band I ever really listened to. I've grown up listening to their music, and as a consequence, their albums have become something of a soundtrack to my life. Particular songs stand out - classics like Beautiful Day, One, With or Without You, I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For, or lesser known songs such as the brilliant Ultraviolet (Light My Way), the emotionally charged Kite and In A Little While, or the more recent Breathe, which will always occupy a special place among my musical favourites for being the first song I ever saw the band perform live.

But one track stands out above them all. Any rock fan will acknowledge that Where The Streets Have No Name is a truly brilliant song, and one which, when performed live, is, for me, as good as music gets. Whenever it starts to play on my iPod, I am transported back to the Olympiastadion in Munich, where I saw the band play last summer. It's the encore, and Bono steps up to the microphone with his acoustic guitar and sings an eerie first verse of Amazing Grace. As he finishes the line 'Was Blind, But Now I See...', the undertones of an organ can be distinguished in the background, and the crowd starts to cheer...they know what's coming. And then that riff rings out in the Bavarian night sky, sending shivers down the spine and a wave of energy around the stadium, and as the tempo increases, the 80,000 strong crown begin to undulate in unison, electrified by the rhythm and held together by music so powerful that you can't help but scream along with it, as it physically draws the breath out of your lungs...

That is what music can do. I don't doubt that that song probably doesn't have the effect on most of you that it does on me. Indeed you may think my choice of music is utter crap, and that's entirely your prerogative! But I'm equally sure that a song does make you feel that way, and that you can therefore undertand the point that I'm trying to make - that music has the ability to make all of us forget where we are, what we're doing, any problems or worries that we might have, and can envelope us in a state in which there is nothing but the music and the rhythm, and where we feel, if only for a few minutes, that anything is possible. And every now and then, we all need that escape. So, if you've read this far, stop whatever else you're doing, and take the next 5 minutes to go and listen to a song, any song, that makes you feel that way.

And if anyone happens to be a fan of U2, here's a link to a great live version of Where The Streets Have No Name. It may not be Munich, but it's the closest I can find...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKC5qKTeJ9k&feature=fvw

To E, or not to E, that is the question...

Apologies, it's been a while since I have found the time to sit down and write.

The question of Spurs' move to the Olympic site at Stratford (hence the horrific titular pun - it's not even the same Stratford...) is weighing heavily on the minds of London's footballing population. Almost every day, the pages of the Evening Standard are plastered with the latest opinion of some sporting dignitary or other, or Karren Brady, regarding the battle between Spurs and West Ham for the dubious honour of being named the 'preferred bidder' for the 2012 site. The idea that the capital's balance of football power may be in the process of being re-shaped has fans across the city up in arms. West Ham are understandably furious at the idea of the Yid Army moving onto their turf (something which we ourselves have experienced in the past with the Gooners), and one might spare a moment to consider the possibility of a new wave of fan violence if the move were to go ahead.

As is the case with a vast number of Spurs fans, I am loath to imagine the possibility of us abandoning our beloved White Hart Lane. While I personally have no links to Tottenham or Haringey beyond the club, I am keenly aware that it is an inherent part of our identity, that decades of history have cemented White Hart Lane and N17 in Tottenham folklore, to the extent that to leave it behind would be to lose part of the club's soul. Even the Northumberland Park Project, our original attempt to redevelop WHL, would usher in a new and separate era, but at least the club would remain in its rightful postcode. The possibility that a move to Stratford could also be accompanied by a change of name (while unlikely), is arguably the factor that is angering Spurs fans the most.

Yet, financial considerations, however void of emotion they may be, must realistically be the foundation of the final decision. WHL, with its potential capacity of 36,000 or so, is simply not enough of a money-maker for a club with our current level of ambition. Combine this with UEFA legislation that states that clubs playing in European competitions will only be permitted to spend what they earn, and there can be no denying that the impact on our ability to continue growing as a club, and to compete with the other leading teams both domestically and in Europe, will be severely impaired without a new stadium. The Northumberland Park Project is wrought with difficulty, as planning permission remains elusive, and the total cost of the project would be around £200 million higher than that of the proposed Olympic move. The knock-on effect of that extra £200 million on our potential transfer budget would surely also have an impact on the club's ability to attract the best players and compete with our rivals at the top of the Premier League in the short-term.

The thought of leaving WHL is truly heart-wrenching, but I personally hope that we are at least chosen as the preferred bidder to take over the Olympic site. Daniel Levy has promised fans that, this being the case, he will then consult them before making the club's final decision, but I think it is important that, at this stage, that plan remains an option. These next few weeks will be some of the most important in the club's history, and it seems that the choice, while almost impossible, boils down to three simple words: Past or Future? Time is fast running out for a solution that will allow us to safeguard both of these interests...