Fabrizio Romano has once again poured cold water on the idea that AC Milan could move for Jonathan David in January.
One thing that does not seem to be a secret is that Milan are looking at options for the striker role. Santiago Gimenez and Christopher Nkunku are both without a league goal yet this season, despite the fact that over €70m combined was invested to sign them from Feyenoord and Chelsea.
The Turin-based newspaper Tuttosport reported earlier in the month that David is back on Milan’s radar, having been linked in previous years. The Canadian striker has struggled since joining Juventus on a free transfer over the summer, so the Rossoneri could try to ‘rescue’ him.
David: Milan remain cold
Fabrizio Romano addressed the rumours surrounding a potential move for David in a video on his YouTube channel, and he distanced Milan from the possibility for the time being.
“The rumours about Jonathan David continue, even though, as I’ve already said, it doesn’t appear to me that Juventus want to get rid of the striker in January. The player himself wants to test himself in black and white, he wants to change things and then possibly evaluate something else in the summer.

“But for now David is only thinking about Juventus who in turn want to give the boy more time. Playing for Juventus is not like playing for Lille. He struggled at the beginning in France too, then from December he started scoring and the Bianconeri are hoping that can happen again this time. However, Milan continue to not be an option.”
Matteo Moretto also chimed in, confirming that David isn’t a target for the Rossoneri: “For two summers, David was linked to Milan. Last year, Fonseca wasn’t entirely happy with him, so he wasn’t fully approved from a technical standpoint.
“In the summer of 2025, the Canadian was released for free, but it wasn’t a deal Milan could afford considering his salary and commissions, so even in this case, he wasn’t even close to joining Milan. And I can tell you that even today, he’s not a hot name for the Rossoneri, quite the opposite.”

21 hours ago
45








English (US) ·