Wages are on the up and will continue to go up as the TV deal is so big. The side effect of it is that you have dudes like Ade on X amount and no one out side of the t6 can afford his wage and clubs will have to sub his wage to get rid of him. I can see it happening more and more as clubs take shots on players at a high wage and they turn out to be mince/not up to expectation and can't get them off the books

TRHO has been entered into the Guinness book of Records for the following:

Longest football unbeaten home run by a manager (nine years)

Most Champions League titles with different clubs (two)

Youngest manager to reach 100 Champions League matches (49 years 12 days)

Most points in a Premier League season (95)

Most games unbeaten at home in the Premier League (77)

Feels a bit wrong that selling one player can pay for our new stadium...

WRT to middling clubs punting on wages/players, I can see some of them coming unstuck. As kingweed says, signing foreign players for £10m on £50k a week is easy, but not all of them are not going to work, and then be very difficult to shift (English clubs have seen them fail, and foreign clubs can no longer afford them).

There seemed to be an element of "xxx who finished below us are spending, so we should start spending" and it started to turn into a bit of a pissing contest till the window shut and put an end to it.

Carlo won the champions league with AC Milan (2x) and Real Madrid. So did Jupp.

Yeah, presumably he's the youngest manager to win two

Yea, thats what I thought. LOL GBR.

is this correct? if so spending this year hasnt been as crazy as i thought

Arsenal with probably the most title EV in years, 8M net spend.

Winning the accountancy trophy one more time.

In true Arsenal fashion they actually settled for 4th.

Fella

let's see if he scores, first.

I'm going through epl withdrawal. Mls and Euro qualifier gambling will have to do to satisfy my dfs itch.

Lol whoever thinks gambling isn't a drug :/. Thank god I'm good at it!

Cool ego rub bro

Look, it's pretty solved. The Nucleus accumbens ramps up in activity in both pathological gamblers and non-gamblers when a 'win' occurs, but the size of the activation, especially in the reward center (VTA) of the gamblers is quite a bit numbed compared to non-gamblers

There is direct evidence that the VTA, Nucleus Accumbens, experience sensitization to gambling in gamblers, which is similar to what is seen in drug addicts. Of course with increased sensitivity comes cravings.

Now, the second aspect of drug addiction - huge dopamine burts - do they exist in gamblers?

Answer is not so straightforward. Some neural evidence has come from people suffering from parkinson's disease but it's not possible to see release of dopamine in a fmri. It only shows regions of the brain getting washed with blood to indicate neural activity. Evidence is surely pointing to a positive hypothesis though.

Pathological gamblers also exhibit poor control of their pre-frontal cortex, and if I had to make a Model based on the evidence of your above post, frequent brags, obsession and explicit cravings, I'd say the Model would suggest damage to your pre-frontal cortex is imminent.

We're going to need to see a copy of that master's certificate to determine if we can proceed with this discussiom.

Do we have a masters in psychology around to weigh in on this?

As luck would have it, I have an MSc in Psychology

However, there is enough AIDS in the other football thread, without contaminating this one with lolscience.

Fyp

What I wrote is 100% the current scientific consensus. We'll need a M.S in Neuroscience, Neurobiology instead of Psychology though.

There is direct evidence in studies for both my claims, however, I must acknowledge that all knowledge is provisional in nature and eternally open to revision.

Pyschology's reluctance to really embrace neuroscience in favour of lol worthy rat experiments and the like is kinda embarrassing. Things are slowly changing though.

yep cos neuroscience isn't based on the entirely uncontroversial hypothesis that the brain is but a series of chemical reactions based on an endless loop of feedback data and is in no way a pseudoscience of itself

no one overarching hypothesis within neuroscience, and at least they're trying to use objective scientific techniques.

having a real scoring battle with alexis and hazard

It is not based on that hypothesis. It is a study of the brain + the central and peripheral nervous system. It's a branch of biology. Like all legit scientific fields, it practices a system of methods and not a system of beliefs. This involves a bottom up approach to argument that includes doubt, self-criticism, the provisional nature of all knowledge and epistemologically speaking - it's underpinning is methodological naturalism.

I am not saying psychology isn't some or most of those things as well, but your definition of neuroscience is utterly lacking. The part about a series of chemical reaction is true mostly due to the broadness of that statement.

nothing better than interlull derails