Fenerbahçe and Milan Tracking Juventus Outcast Vlahovic
Fenerbahçe were the first to submit a bid for Juventus star Vlahovic, but his future won't be sorted out in the first brief summer windows, as he's waiting for further proposals, including one possibly coming from Milan, La Gazzetta dello Sport relays.
The Turkish side tendered a €30/35M fee and €10M per year to the striker. His wages will balloon to €12M in the final year of his Bianconeri contract due to a pre-existing bonus. It's the richest and most concrete offer he has received so far. However, he's keener on Premier League sides or Atletico Madrid.
Advertisement
Vlahovic has a good rapport with Milan coach Massimiliano Allegri, which could give the Rossoneri an edge over Fenerbahçe, but he'd have to settle for a lot less. Their top-paid players earn about €6/7M yearly.
The San Siro-based side is on the fence about relying primarily on Santiago Gimenez at the position. They need to sign one center-forward, but his caliber is in question. They have been testing the waters for Mateo Retegui, who's worth about €40/45M, and Aleksandar Mitrovic.
As for the Old Lady, Randal Kolo Muani announced that he would stick around for the Club World Cup and hoped to stay next season too.
Our Take on Vlahovic, Fenerbahçe, and Milan
They should give Gimenez a chance in a calmer situation before reconsidering the position. They are an unlikely destination as the Serb has never been inclined to give up any money. It's likely too late for him to join a Saudi team that plays in the Club World Cup, but that's one destination to monitor. Turkey is also a strong possibility, as they don't pinch pennies with salaries.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Times
an hour ago
- New York Times
Liverpool and Leverkusen in final stages of Florian Wirtz transfer negotiations
Negotiations between Liverpool and Bayer Leverkusen over a deal taking Florian Wirtz to Anfield are in the final stages, with the clubs speaking daily as they try to reach an agreement. Liverpool made an improved second offer for the 22–year-old Germany playmaker last week worth around €134million (£113m), with about €118.7m (£100m) guaranteed. Advertisement This proposal was not rejected as such and talks continue in order to settle on a package that is acceptable to both sides, but Liverpool have no intention to bid as high as the reported €150m (£126.4m) asking price for the attacking midfielder. The discussions — led by Liverpool sporting director Richard Hughes and Leverkusen managing director of sport Simon Rolfes — are now mainly focused on the structure and specifically payment terms, plus the nature of any add-ons. A medical has also yet to be arranged. The first part of this summer's transfer window, created for the Club World Cup, has now closed and will not reopen until June 16, giving time for both clubs to agree the finer details of this agreement. The magnitude of the transfer, allied to Leverkusen not specifically needing a trade and Liverpool wanting to work within their parameters, explains why the parties are going into such detail over the situation and it is taking understandable time and patience to find a resolution. There is a level of respect within the dialogue that should produce an amicable outcome for what would be Liverpool's record signing and Leverkusen's biggest sale. There is, meanwhile, a possible departure from Merseyside in the form of Darwin Nunez. Al Hilal contacted Liverpool about the Uruguay striker on Monday and the Saudi Pro League team were made aware about the conditions of a move. Liverpool rejected a proposal worth €70m from Al Nassr in January and that sets a minimum bar if an exit is to materialise. Nunez is thought to favour staying in Europe — Spain and Italy being a priority. Atletico Madrid are among those considering the forward. The 25-year-old has scored 40 goals across three seasons at Anfield since joining from Benfica in 2022. (James Gill – Danehouse/Getty Images)
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
China's Petrochemical Reliance on U.S. Outweighs Rare Earth Trade
US petrochemical producers may have found themselves on the front line of global trade wars, BNEF reports, with China's dependence on the US for feedstocks (see "Chinese Plastics Factories Face Mass Closure As US Ethane Supply Evaporates") blunting the impact of its dominations of exports of rare earth metals. China imported more than 565,000 barrels per day of petrochemical feedstocks from the US in 2024 according to the Energy Information Administration, with a value of over $4.7 billion. That dwarfed the $170 million of rare earths the US imported last year, about 70% of which came from China, according to the US Geological Survey. The figures show the dependence the US and China have developed on each other by ever tightening trade links over the past few decades. While China has a tight grip on refining many metals crucial for industry, it also takes in niche chemicals from the US that are difficult to buy elsewhere. China leans on naphtha to produce most base chemicals, which are processed further to end up in everyday items like electronics and clothing. However, some plants can switch to cheaper propane when the economics make sense, which they do regularly. Propane dehydrogenation plants however can't process alternatives like naphtha. The US accounted for over half of all China's propane imports in 2024. US producers have looked to China to buy their ballooning volumes of feedstock, the market value of which has almost quadrupled since 2020. China accounts for almost half of all new mixed-feed ethylene and propylene production capacity set to come online globally over the next four years, based on data compiled by BloombergNEF. A forced divorce The honeymoon period may be about to end. Following the implementation of tariffs by President Donald Trump's administration in April, China retaliated with its own on US imports — including a 125% tariff on feedstocks like propane and ethane. The duty effectively killed the economics of importing US feedstocks. Alternative sources of propane may be hard or expensive to come by, with producers in the Middle East sending most of their supplies to India, South Korea and Japan. While some rerouting could take place, Middle Eastern players could use the lack of alternatives for China's propane dehydrogenation plants to charge a premium. China's propane dehydrogenation operators, like Hengli Petrochemical, have already suffered from weak margins over the past years. Many may opt to shut their operations temporarily. A messy settlement China moved quickly to remove tariffs on US ethane as trade talks commenced. However, while China seems willing to buy US ethane, the US administration may no longer allow it. Enterprise Products Partners — the largest US-based exporter of petrochemical feedstocks — received a notice on Wednesday from the Bureau of Industry and Security at the US Department of Commerce, denying licenses to export ethane to China on the basis that such flows 'pose an unacceptable risk of use in or diversion to a 'military end use' in China.' Energy Transfer received a similar communication. China's ethane cracking capacity is dwarfed by its capacity to process naphtha and propane, but almost all of its ethane imports come from the US. The restrictions will have a significant impact on the Lianyungang and Tianjin plants, owned by Satellite Chemical, Sinopec and INEOS. SP Chemicals, a Singapore-based producer, sources most of its feedstock from Enterprise Products Partners. As the trade war continues, it appears commodities may lead the confrontation, with players on both sides set to feel the pain. By More Top Reads From this article on
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Panama Ports Buyers Caught Between a Rock and a Hard Place
The consortium seeking to finalize a $23 billion deal to acquire dozens of ports from Hong Kong-based port operator CK Hutchison has reportedly held in-person discussions with China's antitrust regulator in recent weeks as the transaction remains in limbo. According to a report from the Financial Times, the talks came as Mediterranean Shipping Company (MSC) and BlackRock are exploring options to ensure China's State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR) approves the acquisition in some form. More from Sourcing Journal US Pushes Global Partners for Trade Deals by Wednesday Trade Truce Crumbles as China Says US Violated Terms TuSimple Reportedly Shared Self-Driving Data With China The report indicates that the parties are discussing amendments that they hoped would satisfy the respective presidents of the U.S. and China—Donald Trump and Xi Jinping—amid their ongoing trade war. CK Hutchison supposedly has mulled a sale of some or all of its remaining 10 ports in China, separate from the existing deal. The report said that transaction was unlikely to occur until the MSC-BlackRock deal was complete. When the initial deal was first announced, all eyes were on the transfer of two ports on opposite sides of the Panama Canal from CK Hutchison to the BlackRock-MSC consortium. Hutchison can still opt to delay the Panama port sale. That part of the transaction came after weeks of rhetoric from Trump, who had repeatedly cited he wanted to 'take back' the Panama Canal. Concerns over Chinese influence over the waterway were a central sticking point in Trump's threats, with Washington considering Hutchison's ownership of the canal-adjacent Balboa and Cristobal ports a threat to U.S. national security. In the March announcement, CK Hutchison co-managing director Frank Sixt insisted that the acquisition of subsidiary Panama Ports Company, which operates the Balboa and Cristobal ports, was 'purely commercial in nature and wholly unrelated to recent political news reports.' But China's reaction to Hutchison's sale to a U.S.-headquartered asset management giant and the world's largest container shipping company suggested otherwise. National state media had gone on record to post their gripes with the deal, calling it 'spineless kneeling' and 'profit-seeking.' Additionally, reports had indicated that President Xi was angered over the transaction since Hutchison did not ask for approval of the deal in advance. Although the transaction was initially expected to be signed on April 2, the date went by without the ports changing hands. That portion of the deal would have shifted control of 43 global ports over to the consortium, with the two Panama ports handed over on a separate deadline. The Panamanian government also needs to approve the second part of the agreement. SAMR said after the sale's reported postponement that it would vet the deal. After an April report indicated that MSC's founding Aponte family had considered separating the Panama ports from the deal altogether, the regulator publicly warned CK Hutchison against a split as a means to circumvent antitrust review. Separating the Panama ports would ultimately require the parties to reach a new agreement. The BlackRock-MSC consortium and Hutchison are still under a 145-day exclusive negotiating window that lasts until late July. During CK Hutchison's annual meeting on May 22, the company put out a statement in rebuttal to SAMR, saying 'it is absolutely impossible for this transaction to take place in any unlawful or non-compliant circumstances.' At the meeting, Hutchison co-managing director Dominic Lai confirmed that MSC would be the main investor in the ports acquisition, and that his own firm would cooperate with Chinese authorities. Lai said during the meeting that the deal is subject to multiple reviews by different authorities, and reiterated the company's position that the group won't proceed with the sale until it obtains all necessary approvals. The Financial Times report said Hutchison could potentially bring in other investors or participants to amend the deal, including terminal operator DP World and Chinese ocean carrier Cosco Shipping. It remains unclear what roles either would have in a potential deal or possible agreement. While so much focus of the deal has been widened based on interests of the U.S. and China, Panama has had its own scrutiny of CK Hutchison and its prior agreement to run the canal-adjacent ports. Following the conclusion of a three-month audit, Panama's comptroller general said the Hong Kong conglomerate owed the country's government $300 million based on a contract breach. Hutchison subsidiary Panama Ports Company has denied the allegations. Others in Panama's government have been critical of Hutchison's operation of the two ports, with attorney general Luis Carlos Gómez finding in March that the 25-year contract extension signed in 2021 was unconstitutional. Panama's Supreme Court has yet to rule on the finding. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
