Inter are looking to beat out the competition for River Plate star Julian Alvarez, but Milan are not planning to give up easily.
The 21-year-old Argentinian forward has shined this season, scoring 18 goals and providing 7 assists in 21 league appearances, attracting the attention of many of the top clubs around Europe, and the Nerazzurri are now working to secure his signature.
As reported by La Gazzetta dello Sport, Alvarez’s agent Fernando Hidalgo will land in the Lombardy capital soon to discuss a possible deal with Inter, although intercity rivals Milan are also keen on the 21-year-old forward.
Hidalgo is also planning to fly to London and Madrid as well, with Manchester United and Atletico Madrid both keen to sign the Argentinian star. He has a €20m release clause and River Plate are hoping to see him join a top club with a large budget, but the player and his agent are keeping an eye on the football instead, which is why Inter have a real chance of signing Alvarez.
A month ago Dario Baccino, Piero Ausilio’s right hand man, flew to Buenos Aires to meet with the player, proving the Nerazzurri’s strong interest in the 21-year-old. It could be a Milanese derby for Alvarez, but they’ll have to fight off the competition from Manchester United and Atletico Madrid.
L’Inter è in pole nell’asta per Alvarez. Ma occhio al blitz Milan https://t.co/AM4DmsnRYy
— La Gazzetta dello Sport (@Gazzetta_it) January 3, 2022
Inter holds the trump card of having Zanetti when trying to convince young Argentinians to join.
Let’s just learn from Kaio Jorge transfer to Juventus!
Many of these South American players apart from Lautaro Martinez always find it difficult to settle down early.
I believe likes of: Giovanne Simeone, Beto, Joao Pedro and Bellotti will make an immediate performance while Alvarez can develop and come in the summer.
Naturaly, Argentine young stars comes to Inter. Not sure how good he is but rarely Argenties fail at Inter.
Let him go to Spain. Or stay in Argentina. Plenty of Italian boys to invest in.
The past tense of shine is shone … Not shined lols
Both are acceptable.
@Jon: just looked it up.
What’s the trouble? The verb shine has two past-tense forms: shined and shone. Shined and shone are competing acceptable past tense forms of the verb shine. Some (but not all) sources recommend using shined when the verb has an object and shone when it does not:
Grammar Girl shined her headlights at the abandoned house. (object)
The light shone brightly. (no object)
The meaning matters too: shined is the only acceptable past tense when you mean “polished,” as in “He shined his shoes.”
What should you do? Stick with the traditional rule of using shined with an object and shone without an object unless you have a good reason to deviate.