Lisandro Martinez

[NovaGB]

We were never going to get him IMO, it’s not just Ten Haag, it’s the fact Man U are a bigger club with more ambition and the manager we have.

They are a bigger club in history because of the sky money in the early 90's, but right now they are a mess and i wouldn't call them more ambitious than us at all, this project is very ambitious, theirs is deep rooted, they just throw money around at big names and expect them to drag them to a title battle with shite cheap ass managers who can't manage the egos and losing the dressing room every 5 mins, they are nothing without Fergie.

It’s not just the 90s, they were huge before, but it’s not Sky that made them bigger, it’s the countless trophies under Ferguson including multiple CLs.

Aside from that they’ve challenged for titles and won titles far more recently than us, they’ve also been in the CL in recent years.

They have more money, a bigger stadium, a bigger fan base and have consistently been one of the biggest earning clubs in the world.

The fact they can sign big names tell you all you need to know, this despite CL football.

I agree they have been in a mess, but their recent managers have been terrible choices, Ten Haag seems a more reasonable choice.

I think people would probably rather play for Ten Haag and Man U than Arteta and Arsenal as they would have seen what Arteta has done in 3 years here.

I can’t say I agree about our project being ambitious, 2 eight places and a fifth place despite no Europe whilst spending huge fortunes and being happy with it doesn’t scream ambition to me.

Man U’s aim under Ten Haag will ultimately be winning the title, not just getting into the CL.

They won 3 titles in the 50s and 2 in the 60s and yes they won 1 European cup in the 60s, but then so did Celtic, Nottingham forest, Aston Villa etc etc, but overall they were lagging far behind us and Liverpool and success wise beneath Everton and around the level of Aston Villa, after the 60s they were shite.

they overtook everyone from 93 after the sky/premier league deal onwards after a 30 year gap with no titles with relegations.

So no, they were not dominant.

We had 10 titles to their 5 and Liverpool had 18.

After the sky money when they were breaking transfer records and buying everybody they won 13 titles and 2 UCL's.

that's a bit of a difference.

[Ach]

Manchester United have moved ahead of Arsenal in their attempt to bring in 24-year-old Argentina defender Lisandro Martinez from Ajax. (Goal)

This is not happening then

[Salibatelli]

Morale of the story is don’t mess about with lowball offers or you’ll get burnt in the end.

Now we’re linked with Grimaldo a guy who can’t defend, fantastic planning.

Another poor window thus far, nothing new with this club though, it’s rinse and repeat.

[Salibatelli]

We were never going to get him IMO, it’s not just Ten Haag, it’s the fact Man U are a bigger club with more ambition and the manager we have.

They are a bigger club in history because of the sky money in the early 90's, but right now they are a mess and i wouldn't call them more ambitious than us at all, this project is very ambitious, theirs is deep rooted, they just throw money around at big names and expect them to drag them to a title battle with shite cheap ass managers who can't manage the egos and losing the dressing room every 5 mins, they are nothing without Fergie.

It’s not just the 90s, they were huge before, but it’s not Sky that made them bigger, it’s the countless trophies under Ferguson including multiple CLs.

Aside from that they’ve challenged for titles and won titles far more recently than us, they’ve also been in the CL in recent years.

They have more money, a bigger stadium, a bigger fan base and have consistently been one of the biggest earning clubs in the world.

The fact they can sign big names tell you all you need to know, this despite CL football.

I agree they have been in a mess, but their recent managers have been terrible choices, Ten Haag seems a more reasonable choice.

I think people would probably rather play for Ten Haag and Man U than Arteta and Arsenal as they would have seen what Arteta has done in 3 years here.

I can’t say I agree about our project being ambitious, 2 eight places and a fifth place despite no Europe whilst spending huge fortunes and being happy with it doesn’t scream ambition to me.

Man U’s aim under Ten Haag will ultimately be winning the title, not just getting into the CL.

They won 3 titles in the 50s and 2 in the 60s and yes they won 1 European cup in the 60s, but then so did Celtic, Nottingham forest, Aston Villa etc etc, but overall they were lagging far behind us and Liverpool and success wise beneath Everton and around the level of Aston Villa, after the 60s they were shite.

they overtook everyone from 93 after the sky/premier league deal onwards after a 30 year gap with no titles with relegations.

So no, they were not dominant.

We had 10 titles to their 5 and Liverpool had 18.

After the sky money when they were breaking transfer records and buying everybody they won 13 titles and 2 UCL's.

that's a bit of a difference.

They’ve got a bigger fan base over the world and have won the European cup/CL numerous times, which will always elevate them above us.

In the 90s they earnt their money by being the best, they weren’t making all kinds of big signings until they won title after title.

They didn’t win 13 titles by buying, they won them by having a great manager in charge.

[alexafc12]

Going to United

Deal in 24/48 hours apparently

[NovaGB]

We were never going to get him IMO, it’s not just Ten Haag, it’s the fact Man U are a bigger club with more ambition and the manager we have.

They are a bigger club in history because of the sky money in the early 90's, but right now they are a mess and i wouldn't call them more ambitious than us at all, this project is very ambitious, theirs is deep rooted, they just throw money around at big names and expect them to drag them to a title battle with shite cheap ass managers who can't manage the egos and losing the dressing room every 5 mins, they are nothing without Fergie.

It’s not just the 90s, they were huge before, but it’s not Sky that made them bigger, it’s the countless trophies under Ferguson including multiple CLs.

Aside from that they’ve challenged for titles and won titles far more recently than us, they’ve also been in the CL in recent years.

They have more money, a bigger stadium, a bigger fan base and have consistently been one of the biggest earning clubs in the world.

The fact they can sign big names tell you all you need to know, this despite CL football.

I agree they have been in a mess, but their recent managers have been terrible choices, Ten Haag seems a more reasonable choice.

I think people would probably rather play for Ten Haag and Man U than Arteta and Arsenal as they would have seen what Arteta has done in 3 years here.

I can’t say I agree about our project being ambitious, 2 eight places and a fifth place despite no Europe whilst spending huge fortunes and being happy with it doesn’t scream ambition to me.

Man U’s aim under Ten Haag will ultimately be winning the title, not just getting into the CL.

They won 3 titles in the 50s and 2 in the 60s and yes they won 1 European cup in the 60s, but then so did Celtic, Nottingham forest, Aston Villa etc etc, but overall they were lagging far behind us and Liverpool and success wise beneath Everton and around the level of Aston Villa, after the 60s they were shite.

they overtook everyone from 93 after the sky/premier league deal onwards after a 30 year gap with no titles with relegations.

So no, they were not dominant.

We had 10 titles to their 5 and Liverpool had 18.

After the sky money when they were breaking transfer records and buying everybody they won 13 titles and 2 UCL's.

that's a bit of a difference.

They’ve got a bigger fan base over the world and have won the European cup/CL numerous times, which will always elevate them above us.

In the 90s they earnt their money by being the best, they weren’t making all kinds of big signings until they won title after title.

They didn’t win 13 titles by buying, they won them by having a great manager in charge.

completely disagree, they won one European cup in the 60s at that point and only 5 titles to our 10 and were a team that was a relegation battler to mid table team as Liverpool dominated the 80s.

Aston Villa and Nottingham Forest have also won European cups, neither of them are bigger than Arsenal.

once receiving the sky money they spent a shit ton more than any other team and continued to do so up until Chelsea started outspending them in the mid 2000s.

Blackburn and Newcastle popped up here and there, and us during early wenger years before the stadium move.

Heres a link to refresh your memory, they were breaking transfer records almost every season.

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk ... er-3867349

[Highbury Hillbilly]

The prospect of a 5'9 LCB for £50m didn’t fill me with confidence tbf

[Roycck]

Too short for left center back and ship has sailed for this one.

[EliteKiller]

completely disagree, they won one European cup in the 60s at that point and only 5 titles to our 10 and were a team that was a relegation battler to mid table team as Liverpool dominated the 80s.

Aston Villa and Nottingham Forest have also won European cups, neither of them are bigger than Arsenal.

once receiving the sky money they spent a shit ton more than any other team and continued to do so up until Chelsea started outspending them in the mid 2000s.

Blackburn and Newcastle popped up here and there, and us during early wenger years before the stadium move.

Heres a link to refresh your memory, they were breaking transfer records almost every season.

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk ... er-3867349

Pointless argument - who was bigger in the 50s - 90s is an academic exercise - we live in the Premier League age during which time only 7 teams have won the EPL

Utd 13
Chelsea 5
City 5
Arsenal 3
and Blackburn, Leicester, Liverpool 1 each

To pretend we are even close to Man Utd, either right now or over the last thirty years, is silly. By whatever measure - titles - fan base - income - social media they are just miles ahead. Best let this one go.

[RowdyRoddyPoppins]

We tried.

Been here before many times. Still failing.

[NovaGB]

completely disagree, they won one European cup in the 60s at that point and only 5 titles to our 10 and were a team that was a relegation battler to mid table team as Liverpool dominated the 80s.

Aston Villa and Nottingham Forest have also won European cups, neither of them are bigger than Arsenal.

once receiving the sky money they spent a shit ton more than any other team and continued to do so up until Chelsea started outspending them in the mid 2000s.

Blackburn and Newcastle popped up here and there, and us during early wenger years before the stadium move.

Heres a link to refresh your memory, they were breaking transfer records almost every season.

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk ... er-3867349

Pointless argument - who was bigger in the 50s - 90s is an academic exercise - we live in the Premier League age during which time only 7 teams have won the EPL

Utd 13
Chelsea 5
City 5
Arsenal 3
and Blackburn, Leicester, Liverpool 1 each

To pretend we are even close to Man Utd, either right now or over the last thirty years, is silly. By whatever measure - titles - fan base - income - social media they are just miles ahead. Best let this one go.

Thats not what i'm saying, he said Utd were always bigger/better than us before the 90s sky money and i said no they wasn't they had less success than us, over the last 30 years yeah, but thats not what he said.

Best let this one go? best learn to read ffs

[Salibatelli]

completely disagree, they won one European cup in the 60s at that point and only 5 titles to our 10 and were a team that was a relegation battler to mid table team as Liverpool dominated the 80s.

Aston Villa and Nottingham Forest have also won European cups, neither of them are bigger than Arsenal.

once receiving the sky money they spent a shit ton more than any other team and continued to do so up until Chelsea started outspending them in the mid 2000s.

Blackburn and Newcastle popped up here and there, and us during early wenger years before the stadium move.

Heres a link to refresh your memory, they were breaking transfer records almost every season.

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk ... er-3867349

Pointless argument - who was bigger in the 50s - 90s is an academic exercise - we live in the Premier League age during which time only 7 teams have won the EPL

Utd 13
Chelsea 5
City 5
Arsenal 3
and Blackburn, Leicester, Liverpool 1 each

To pretend we are even close to Man Utd, either right now or over the last thirty years, is silly. By whatever measure - titles - fan base - income - social media they are just miles ahead. Best let this one go.

Thats not what i'm saying, he said Utd were always bigger/better than us before the 90s sky money and i said no they wasn't they had less success than us, over the last 30 years yeah, but thats not what he said.

Best let this one go? best learn to read ffs

I actually said they were huge before the PL, but I specifically challenged your point that the sky money made them bigger and said it was actually their success.

But there’s no doubt they were massive before with the successful teams that also won the European Cup, they had a big following Internationally.

As for Martinez He’s a quality player and he’s a player I would have loved to see at Arsenal.

[Losmeister]

This guy is a disaster... Glad we have not

[CaptGooner]

This guy is a disaster... Glad we have not

United having more ambition than us is clearly working out for them.

[Highbury Hillbilly]

This would have been a disastrous buy!