Player Watch Player Watch: Giovani Lo Celso

[ButchCassidy]

It's relevant though. They paid the 22m for him during the season and then missed out on European football. They don't make a lot of money, plus they supposedly have a clause where they have to pay him more if they keep him

Yeah their entire annual budget is only like 90m.

 

[ReadieSpur]

Long post here, chaps - apologies in advance. The first part is light-hearted, the second part more serious.

The thing is the year of millennium celebrations was actually incorrect. As was reported at the time. But we have a habit of seeing round numbers as more significant. We have a bit of a cognitive bias when it comes to round numbers. Economists have actually studied what they call 'round number bias' and there's tons of stuff on it on the Net. We have a tendency to like round numbers more because we find them easier to remember.

But, the logical state is as follows: (and I'm going to shamelessly needle @scat1620 @sage @DONOS10 @[email protected] @SandroClegane @Annekcma @THFCSPURS19 @Fidget @rawhide @Steffen @Qualsonic @spursdon1 @Parklane Spur with a little maths lesson - love you all, really! ):

There was no 0AD. The first year of the common era under the Gregorian calendar is 1AD. So the end of the first decade would be 31st December 10AD, not 31st December 9AD, as is shown below:

01/01/01 - 31/12/01 = 1 year
01/01/01 - 31/12/02 = 2 years
01/01/01 - 31/12/03 = 3 years
01/01/01 - 31/12/04 = 4 years
01/01/01 - 31/12/05 = 5 years
01/01/01 - 31/12/06 = 6 years
01/01/01 - 31/12/07 = 7 years
01/01/01 - 31/12/08 = 8 years
01/01/01 - 31/12/09 = 9 years
01/01/01 - 31/12/10 = 10 years = 1 decade

Pretty simple. Can't really argue with that, right?

So the beginning of a new decade, a new century, a new millennium is a year that ends with a 1 (rather fitting, really!)

Now, <fully engaging sarcasm mode >, correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure the year 2020 doesn't end in a 1.

We might all feel comfortable with the 0-9 year thing, but it's no different to the 1-10 thing - both are a span of ten years. However, the logical position is that the current decade ends on 31st December 2020, not 31st December 2019. Logic. All kinds of semantic arguments can be made, but none of them can escape the logical state that a decade, a century, millennium ends in a year ending in 0, not 9.

I will say this, though: what's I find amusing is that this is a logical argument for why we haven't failed in something. And yet, we've got some who want to argue that if we win a trophy next year, we wouldn't maintain our record, when logically we would. I mean, I know pessimism runs strong in the Spurs fanbase, but I didn't think we'd welcome arguments that do us out of things!

Ah well, there's nowt so queer, I suppose.

I'm going to be more serious now, and again apologies for the length of the post, but the main point for me is that we've made progress even if we haven't any silverware to show for it yet. What prompted all this debate is the idea that ENIC is some evil force holding the club back, because we've 'not won something in the 2010s'. But that's just the latest in a series of arguments that are one-by-one being debunked: Lack of transfer activity - that's only been the last two windows and ITK has said it's not to do with Levy or ENIC. ENIC are looking to sell the club. No evidence of it, but even if they did, so what? - the club won't disappear if someone else buys it. What else?

Ultimately, the anti-ENICers won't be swayed by anything. Even if we win the Premier League, I expect there to be the odd post here and there blaming ENIC for not winning it with the full 114 points on offer or some such balls. So we haven't won anything in the 2010s? And? Are we alone in that? Most of the League clubs haven't won anything for a far longer period than that. Does that make all their owners terrible? Of course not.

We have to view our club realistically. We were a giant, whose size diminished. If you want to talk about mismanagement, look to the Scholar years - that's what put this club back, not Levy or ENIC. And Sugar, although we must credit him for stopping the rot, didn't really do much else. As I said before, short memories. That's not to say that ENIC have done everything brilliantly at every turn, but there's a difference between individual mistakes and the overall direction of travel.

Under Levy and ENIC, we're on the rise again, but we're not there yet. The idea that winning a trophy within some arbitrary time period should be the yardstick by which the stewardship of the club is judged is ludicrous. What if we won a trophy in 2021 and then nothing until 2039? Would that be better than winning something in 2029 and then in 2041? One is an 18-year period that falls within consecutive decades. The other is 12-year period that doesn't. So the former is better than the latter?

All the signs, all the noises, all the activity points to the club's management determined to make us a giant once more - making us a club that will be looking to win something every year, not just once a poxy decade.

Once more, sincere apologies for going off on a very wild tangent. I know it doesn't specifically relate to Lo Celso's transfer, but the flavour, the underlying arguments, do. I'm sure the club is doing everything it can to get this transfer (and others) over the line. But even if we don't, there will be valid reasons for it. Let's be logical: if we, as fans, can identify the fact that we have a great opportunity to progress, surely the club's management do too? Given that, is it logical to assume that they won't do everything in their power to exploit that opportunity?

I think a small measure of neck-winding is needed - we're all very desperate to see new arrivals and it's skewing our vision a little. Also, an honest assessment of what we, as a club, are and aren't capable of wouldn't go amiss. Perhaps putting aside the Football Manager analysis in favour of a logical, real-world one...?

Too long. Didn't read.

 

[even steven]

Long post here, chaps - apologies in advance. The first part is light-hearted, the second part more serious.

The thing is the year of millennium celebrations was actually incorrect. As was reported at the time. But we have a habit of seeing round numbers as more significant. We have a bit of a cognitive bias when it comes to round numbers. Economists have actually studied what they call 'round number bias' and there's tons of stuff on it on the Net. We have a tendency to like round numbers more because we find them easier to remember.

But, the logical state is as follows: (and I'm going to shamelessly needle @scat1620 @sage @DONOS10 @[email protected] @SandroClegane @Annekcma @THFCSPURS19 @Fidget @rawhide @Steffen @Qualsonic @spursdon1 @Parklane Spur with a little maths lesson - love you all, really! ):

There was no 0AD. The first year of the common era under the Gregorian calendar is 1AD. So the end of the first decade would be 31st December 10AD, not 31st December 9AD, as is shown below:

01/01/01 - 31/12/01 = 1 year
01/01/01 - 31/12/02 = 2 years
01/01/01 - 31/12/03 = 3 years
01/01/01 - 31/12/04 = 4 years
01/01/01 - 31/12/05 = 5 years
01/01/01 - 31/12/06 = 6 years
01/01/01 - 31/12/07 = 7 years
01/01/01 - 31/12/08 = 8 years
01/01/01 - 31/12/09 = 9 years
01/01/01 - 31/12/10 = 10 years = 1 decade

Pretty simple. Can't really argue with that, right?

So the beginning of a new decade, a new century, a new millennium is a year that ends with a 1 (rather fitting, really!)

Now, <fully engaging sarcasm mode >, correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure the year 2020 doesn't end in a 1.

We might all feel comfortable with the 0-9 year thing, but it's no different to the 1-10 thing - both are a span of ten years. However, the logical position is that the current decade ends on 31st December 2020, not 31st December 2019. Logic. All kinds of semantic arguments can be made, but none of them can escape the logical state that a decade, a century, millennium ends in a year ending in 0, not 9.

I will say this, though: what's I find amusing is that this is a logical argument for why we haven't failed in something. And yet, we've got some who want to argue that if we win a trophy next year, we wouldn't maintain our record, when logically we would. I mean, I know pessimism runs strong in the Spurs fanbase, but I didn't think we'd welcome arguments that do us out of things!

Ah well, there's nowt so queer, I suppose.

I'm going to be more serious now, and again apologies for the length of the post, but the main point for me is that we've made progress even if we haven't any silverware to show for it yet. What prompted all this debate is the idea that ENIC is some evil force holding the club back, because we've 'not won something in the 2010s'. But that's just the latest in a series of arguments that are one-by-one being debunked: Lack of transfer activity - that's only been the last two windows and ITK has said it's not to do with Levy or ENIC. ENIC are looking to sell the club. No evidence of it, but even if they did, so what? - the club won't disappear if someone else buys it. What else?

Ultimately, the anti-ENICers won't be swayed by anything. Even if we win the Premier League, I expect there to be the odd post here and there blaming ENIC for not winning it with the full 114 points on offer or some such balls. So we haven't won anything in the 2010s? And? Are we alone in that? Most of the League clubs haven't won anything for a far longer period than that. Does that make all their owners terrible? Of course not.

We have to view our club realistically. We were a giant, whose size diminished. If you want to talk about mismanagement, look to the Scholar years - that's what put this club back, not Levy or ENIC. And Sugar, although we must credit him for stopping the rot, didn't really do much else. As I said before, short memories. That's not to say that ENIC have done everything brilliantly at every turn, but there's a difference between individual mistakes and the overall direction of travel.

Under Levy and ENIC, we're on the rise again, but we're not there yet. The idea that winning a trophy within some arbitrary time period should be the yardstick by which the stewardship of the club is judged is ludicrous. What if we won a trophy in 2021 and then nothing until 2039? Would that be better than winning something in 2029 and then in 2041? One is an 18-year period that falls within consecutive decades. The other is 12-year period that doesn't. So the former is better than the latter?

All the signs, all the noises, all the activity points to the club's management determined to make us a giant once more - making us a club that will be looking to win something every year, not just once a poxy decade.

Once more, sincere apologies for going off on a very wild tangent. I know it doesn't specifically relate to Lo Celso's transfer, but the flavour, the underlying arguments, do. I'm sure the club is doing everything it can to get this transfer (and others) over the line. But even if we don't, there will be valid reasons for it. Let's be logical: if we, as fans, can identify the fact that we have a great opportunity to progress, surely the club's management do too? Given that, is it logical to assume that they won't do everything in their power to exploit that opportunity?

I think a small measure of neck-winding is needed - we're all very desperate to see new arrivals and it's skewing our vision a little. Also, an honest assessment of what we, as a club, are and aren't capable of wouldn't go amiss. Perhaps putting aside the Football Manager analysis in favour of a logical, real-world one...?

 

[rez9000]

Too long. Didn't read.

Too brainless. Put on ignore.

 

[topper]

Celta Betis FC

Of course - silly me; must have got confused with Real Vigo!

 

[freeeki]

Have the calendar nonces backed off yet or is it still safest to avoid the thread?

 

[Yiddo100]

Too brainless. Put on ignore.

At least you took it well

 

[BringBack_leGin]

Like @BringBack_leGin I’m anticipating you’re going to have a career defining transfer window. And I must say, you haven’t disappointed today

Please... I’m odds on for GOAT

 

[rez9000]

At least you took it well

I was smitten by the fact that he didn't read it, but took time to actually comment about it!

 

[Hoopspur]

Fuck me!!!?!!

Bring it on!

 

[Flashspur]

Why do they still mention the release clause? I mean those things are always well over the top and not an indication of what a club may sell for. Plus I thought it didn't affect non La Liga teams anyway? Either way Celta can't afford to turn down big money. They're rightly holding out for as much as they can get but they'll have to sell him this window. I think they'd prefer to sell to us than Atletico though.

First Jack Clarke is a RB and now this. I am worried about you

 

[Fredo]

I'd write the season off if Celso or Ndombele don't come

 

[Finchyid]

Twitter is hilarious, reports now say utd are favourites to sign him

 

[rawhide]

Long post here, chaps - apologies in advance. The first part is light-hearted, the second part more serious.

The thing is the year of millennium celebrations was actually incorrect. As was reported at the time. But we have a habit of seeing round numbers as more significant. We have a bit of a cognitive bias when it comes to round numbers. Economists have actually studied what they call 'round number bias' and there's tons of stuff on it on the Net. We have a tendency to like round numbers more because we find them easier to remember.

But, the logical state is as follows: (and I'm going to shamelessly needle @scat1620 @sage @DONOS10 @[email protected] @SandroClegane @Annekcma @THFCSPURS19 @Fidget @rawhide @Steffen @Qualsonic @spursdon1 @Parklane Spur with a little maths lesson - love you all, really! ):

There was no 0AD. The first year of the common era under the Gregorian calendar is 1AD. So the end of the first decade would be 31st December 10AD, not 31st December 9AD, as is shown below:

01/01/01 - 31/12/01 = 1 year
01/01/01 - 31/12/02 = 2 years
01/01/01 - 31/12/03 = 3 years
01/01/01 - 31/12/04 = 4 years
01/01/01 - 31/12/05 = 5 years
01/01/01 - 31/12/06 = 6 years
01/01/01 - 31/12/07 = 7 years
01/01/01 - 31/12/08 = 8 years
01/01/01 - 31/12/09 = 9 years
01/01/01 - 31/12/10 = 10 years = 1 decade

Pretty simple. Can't really argue with that, right?

So the beginning of a new decade, a new century, a new millennium is a year that ends with a 1 (rather fitting, really!)

Now, <fully engaging sarcasm mode >, correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure the year 2020 doesn't end in a 1.

We might all feel comfortable with the 0-9 year thing, but it's no different to the 1-10 thing - both are a span of ten years. However, the logical position is that the current decade ends on 31st December 2020, not 31st December 2019. Logic. All kinds of semantic arguments can be made, but none of them can escape the logical state that a decade, a century, millennium ends in a year ending in 0, not 9.

I will say this, though: what's I find amusing is that this is a logical argument for why we haven't failed in something. And yet, we've got some who want to argue that if we win a trophy next year, we wouldn't maintain our record, when logically we would. I mean, I know pessimism runs strong in the Spurs fanbase, but I didn't think we'd welcome arguments that do us out of things!

Ah well, there's nowt so queer, I suppose.

I'm going to be more serious now, and again apologies for the length of the post, but the main point for me is that we've made progress even if we haven't any silverware to show for it yet. What prompted all this debate is the idea that ENIC is some evil force holding the club back, because we've 'not won something in the 2010s'. But that's just the latest in a series of arguments that are one-by-one being debunked: Lack of transfer activity - that's only been the last two windows and ITK has said it's not to do with Levy or ENIC. ENIC are looking to sell the club. No evidence of it, but even if they did, so what? - the club won't disappear if someone else buys it. What else?

Ultimately, the anti-ENICers won't be swayed by anything. Even if we win the Premier League, I expect there to be the odd post here and there blaming ENIC for not winning it with the full 114 points on offer or some such balls. So we haven't won anything in the 2010s? And? Are we alone in that? Most of the League clubs haven't won anything for a far longer period than that. Does that make all their owners terrible? Of course not.

We have to view our club realistically. We were a giant, whose size diminished. If you want to talk about mismanagement, look to the Scholar years - that's what put this club back, not Levy or ENIC. And Sugar, although we must credit him for stopping the rot, didn't really do much else. As I said before, short memories. That's not to say that ENIC have done everything brilliantly at every turn, but there's a difference between individual mistakes and the overall direction of travel.

Under Levy and ENIC, we're on the rise again, but we're not there yet. The idea that winning a trophy within some arbitrary time period should be the yardstick by which the stewardship of the club is judged is ludicrous. What if we won a trophy in 2021 and then nothing until 2039? Would that be better than winning something in 2029 and then in 2041? One is an 18-year period that falls within consecutive decades. The other is 12-year period that doesn't. So the former is better than the latter?

All the signs, all the noises, all the activity points to the club's management determined to make us a giant once more - making us a club that will be looking to win something every year, not just once a poxy decade.

Once more, sincere apologies for going off on a very wild tangent. I know it doesn't specifically relate to Lo Celso's transfer, but the flavour, the underlying arguments, do. I'm sure the club is doing everything it can to get this transfer (and others) over the line. But even if we don't, there will be valid reasons for it. Let's be logical: if we, as fans, can identify the fact that we have a great opportunity to progress, surely the club's management do too? Given that, is it logical to assume that they won't do everything in their power to exploit that opportunity?

I think a small measure of neck-winding is needed - we're all very desperate to see new arrivals and it's skewing our vision a little. Also, an honest assessment of what we, as a club, are and aren't capable of wouldn't go amiss. Perhaps putting aside the Football Manager analysis in favour of a logical, real-world one...?

You’ve made a valid logical argument regarding decades. 10 consecutive years starting at 1 = the decade.

However decades are defined by their tens rather than consecutive units. The 90s ran from 1990 to 1999, the noughties from 2000 to 2009, and thus the teenies (or some other twee title ) from 2010 to 2019. The twenties start on 1st January 2020.

Edit: Apologies, I’ll drop it now.

 

[chrisd2k]

This thread ffs

 

[Snarfalicious]

The United stuff sounds a lot like the Barcelona/Davinson Sanchez stuff. It also came from a really dubious link from Spain.

 

[Indisguise]

This thread ffs

s'wot 'appens when you ain't signed no one for 500 yearsdays innit...

 

[Wick3d]

The United stuff sounds a lot like the Barcelona/Davinson Sanchez stuff. It also came from a really dubious link from Spain.

Yeah, just one of those twitter users trying to make some waves and gather a following. Sometimes they get lucky, get enough followers where then pushing sponsers and ads becomes profitable for them. Really easy to do as well!

Anyway, seems Lo Celso is rather open to a move to us, as long as we agree a fee soon, I'm sure he will pick us. This is assuming the only serious suitors are us and United. If any of the other big boys come in, well then all bets are off.

 

[Snarfalicious]

Starting for Argentina (obviously). Sanchez in defense for Colombia.

 

[NHAndy]

Starting for Argentina (obviously). Sanchez in defense for Colombia.

I hadn’t really seen much of him prior to this game. 7 minutes in and I think we should just pay the 70 million immediately and get him signed.