rejected

SHE described her stint on Dragons’ Den as the “biggest and the most public rejection” ever – but Zara Saleem has had the last laugh.

The 37-year-old mum-of-two, who quit her underpaid £27k-a-year job, now has a business worth £5 million – and she started it all with just £500 at her kitchen table.

13

13

But things haven’t all been smooth sailing for Zara, who has two daughters, aged eight and seven and her thriving beauty brand, Delhicious.

Not only did she deal with a huge plummet in sales during the coronavirus lockdown, but she’s also been faced with numerous rejections by top high-street retailers too.

However, now sales are flying for the award-winning skincare brand, which is approved by dermatologists and clinically tested. 

Opening up on her business journey, Zara exclusively tells us: “I had no money when I started – we had no more than £500.

“We started with just buying a small batch of ingredients and a tiny bit of packaging. Everything else that we could do for free, we did for free, including making the website. 

“The first year of revenue was very low. It was around £50,000 in year one. But now, we’ve made over £5 million since we launched.

“We’ve sold over 100,000 bottles of hair oil – we sold 10,000 bottles in three days.

“We are currently on track to make between £2 and £3 million this year and are hoping to scale the business to £8 million in the next two to three years.” 

Making products in the kitchen

It was when Zara found herself having to mark up to 150 school books a day that she realised being an “underpaid” teacher was no longer for her.

And it was when Zara, who is married to her co-founder Zak Ismail, 36, came face to face with skin challenges in 2018 that the mother began making products in her kitchen.

Zak helped out too and whilst on maternity leave, things really took off, as the beauty guru, who lives in Wembley, London, explains: “I had really dry skin and really ugly, scaly patches that were really painful. 

“I didn’t really want to use steroid creams and that’s when I started to experiment with ingredients that I knew had anti-inflammatory properties.

“I used to use black tea as a face toner, so I would brew the tea and add some oils, and I knew that it was a good anti-inflammatory.

“I formulated the body scrub in my kitchen and it had incredible results. Within a couple of days, my skin had almost completely cleared.”

We were really scared in the beginning but we took the risk. We were quite delusional

Zara Saleem

At the time, while Zara was employed as a teacher, her husband Zak was working in a corporate job. 

However, their lifestyle was far from lavish, as she adds: “I wasn’t living a luxurious life at all.

“The money wasn’t great – teachers are incredibly underpaid for the amount of work that they do.”

The GlossyBox deal that changed everything

Unsure of the brand’s future, Zara shares: “It was never really meant to be a proper beauty brand – I didn’t really have it in my head how far I could take it. 

“It was literally just me and my husband with the scrappy website that we made, hoping that we would get some sales.

“I had 20 bags of body scrub at the time and we had no sales coming in. 

“I was like, ‘if I sell a couple of body scrubs, I’m great,’ but I was very much at home with my two children under two.”

13

13

13

But it was a huge deal with GlossyBox that really made the business take off, as Zara recognises: “Once we’d launched and started to get a couple of sales, I was adamant that I wanted to try and get some press, so I started to reach out to a couple of journalists.

“I went on the radio and then after that, we got approached by GlossyBox, who at the time were the biggest beauty box around, and beauty boxes around that time were really taking off. They wanted to place an order of 100,000 units.

“We were still making products in our kitchen. We had no manufacturer, we had no idea how we would actually be able to fulfil the order, but we took it on and turned our house into a factory.

“Our neighbours very kindly took our furniture in, we had our family and friends coming and filling body scrubs for us and we had a crazy four months where we hand-packed and made 100,000 body scrubs.

“I think it was at that point that we kind of thought, ‘this could actually be something.’”

Going viral on TikTok

After the success with GlossyBox, Zara and Zak turned to body balms – now one of their bestselling, award-winning products. 

Zara explains: “We made our body balms which went super viral on TikTok because they had incredible results for people with eczema and psoriasis. 

“Our fridge was full of balms and we couldn’t make enough because the minute we would put them online they were gone.

“We created waitlists. I think we had a waitlist of around 50,000 people at one point. It was actually insane. 

“We started hitting five-figure sales a month. We were growing, growing, growing and sales were pouring in.”

Whilst running the business, Zara returned to her teaching job, but shortly after, realised it was time to quit for good and focus on her business full-time. Soon after, Zak followed suit.

The couple were initially fearful to take the risk and Zara describes her actions as “delusional.” But in just three months, she had matched her monthly teacher wage.

The businesswoman shares: “We had no business background whatsoever. We were really scared in the beginning but we took the risk.

“We were quite delusional. I don’t think we thought things through enough to be honest.

“We were really lucky. We had a really supportive circle of family and friends who helped us get through. 

“Who knows, if anyone did doubt us, but it wasn’t to our face.”

Rejection after rejection

But things haven’t always been easy for this couple, as Zara shares: “When we first launched, we aimed to get into Boots and buyers rejected us straight away.

“They were like, ‘no you’re not ready’, and I agree with that now.

“We’ve had multiple rejections – every single retailer you can think of rejected us.” 

After sales plummeted in lockdown, just four years after launching the business, Zara decided to go on Dragons’ Den, where she asked for £50,000 for 15% of the business.

But Zara left the infamous den without an investment, as she shares: “I felt like the Dragons didn’t quite get the brand.

13

13

13

“But also, what had happened was, we had a spike in our sales with the GlossyBox order, and then after that, it was lockdown, which meant that I had both of my very small children at home, so I had to step back because I didn’t have any childcare available.

“I had to make that conscious decision to not invest as much time as I could in the business and obviously to the Dragons that didn’t sound good.

“I think they just didn’t really get it and they thought we were a TikTok brand. It felt like a little bit more of an excuse as to why they may not have wanted to invest.”

Reflecting on her time on the BBC show, the mother admits: “Dragons’ Den was probably the biggest and the most public rejection I’ve had, which was really difficult.

“Even before it aired, I was really nervous because I felt like I’d let myself down, I felt like I’d let the brand down because I didn’t get the investment.

“It was a really tough experience and at the time, I felt like I doubted everything about the brand.

I thought it would be good if I could have secured the investment, not for the money but more for the guidance, because obviously I didn’t have a mentor and we didn’t really know what we were doing

Zara Saleem

“They didn’t think it would scale and they didn’t think it was investable because of that one dip.

“And actually, rejection is always redirection and it’s something you need to overcome if you truly believe in whatever it is that you’re building.

“And I do fully believe in the brand, I believe in the ethos and the values of it, so I guess that keeps me going.

“I wasn’t relying on Dragons’ Den for the success of the business. I thought it would be good if I could have secured the investment, not for the money but more for the guidance, because obviously I didn’t have a mentor and we didn’t really know what we were doing.” 

Expansion and £120,000 salaries

But despite walking away empty handed, it didn’t take long for things to pick up again for Delhicious. 

As well as being online for Debenhams, Zara says: “Retail was a big move for us – we always wanted to be on the high street. We are in store in Beauty Base and exclusively in store with Superdrug.”

Things have since expanded from Zara and Zak’s kitchen and now, Delhicious is a team of five.

Zara adds: “We’ve got all UK manufacturers now – that process took us quite a long time.

“Obviously when you’re making products at home, it’s a very different process – you’re making a couple of hundred to now making thousands at a time.”

“We used to pack every single order that used to come in. Now we have a fulfilment centre and it’s a very, streamlined process compared to how it was before, which was very hands-on by me and Zak literally seeing every order coming in, making the products, printing labels, and packing them ourselves.

“We’ve outsourced all of that so we can actually focus on the growth of the business.”

Being able to focus on the business growth has proved profitable for Zara and now, both she and Zak are on £120,000 salaries. 

Life-changing success

Reflecting on the company’s success, she acknowledges: “We’ve had six-figure months – we’ve done at least £200,000 in one month.

“It’s been so life-changing in so many ways. Financially, to have that ease of mind, it’s incredible.

“I’m not a big spender but if we want to go on a nice holiday, we can go on a nice holiday.

“We’ve recently done a big house renovation, which was amazing – it’s something we’ve always wanted to do.

13

13

13

“Going from a £27,000 salary to then being able to be on six-figures now – I would never have been able to get that in teaching.

“We’re very, very blessed and very lucky, but we’ve worked really hard for it.

“I’m still very modest, I’m very conscious of the way that I spend my money, and that’s something that I pass on to my children as well.”

Now that Zara is her own boss, she has much more flexibility over her life, as she beams: “I absolutely love that I can do all the school drop-offs and pick-ups. I have a lot of flexibility over my time which is so nice.

“Of course, we still do work a lot. People get the impression that when you run your own business, you’re not working as much.

“We work a lot but it’s on our own terms – that was the one thing that I couldn’t get in teaching and it used to break my heart.”

Zara is now on a mission to get more women into the industry, as she continues: “I’m a really big advocate for women going into business. I think it’s such a great way for women to be independent, but still be able to be present in their other roles. We need more women in business.”

Discussing the future of the business, Zara concludes: “Hopefully we’re going outside of the UK now as well and hoping to be able to expand distribution and go to more multiple retailers as well. 

“We’ve definitely got our eyes on Australia and the US, as well as Kuwait and Dubai.” 

Unlock even more award-winning articles as The Sun launches brand new membership programme – Sun Club

13

13

WASHINGTON — More than half the deficit reduction that President Reagan will propose for fiscal 1987 will represent recycled proposals that Congress rejected last year, and about 40% will be such new ideas as selling government property and loans, White House Budget Director James C. Miller III told congressional leaders Tuesday.

But congressional leaders insisted that Reagan, if his spending cuts are to win approval this year, must drop his opposition to a tax increase.

Senate Budget Committee Chairman Pete V. Domenici (R-N.M.) told reporters that higher taxes are needed to “glue the package together” and reach deficit-reduction targets spelled out by recently enacted balanced-budget legislation.

Some in Congress have predicted that Reagan’s budget, which he will submit formally next month, will be “dead on arrival” in Congress, particularly if he presses for cuts that Congress previously rejected. But Miller has argued that Congress will be more inclined to accept the proposals this year, when it faces the constraints of the new Gramm-Rudman law, which mandates a balanced budget by 1991.

Edwin L. Dale Jr., a spokesman for Miller, said that more than one-third of the new budget’s proposed deficit reduction would be accomplished by terminating government programs.

About one-fourth, he said, would result from selling government assets and charging new or increased fees for government services. The remainder of the savings would come from trimming government programs and making them more efficient.

However, there were few indications Tuesday that Congress, returning to Washington for the opening day of its new session, is likely to accept Reagan’s deficit-reduction formula. Instead, congressional leaders immediately squared off with Reagan for the budget battle that promises to dominate all other issues this year.

House Speaker Thomas P. (Tip) O’Neill Jr. (D-Mass.) bluntly labeled Reagan’s forthcoming budget proposal–which is expected to protect defense spending growth by cutting domestic programs–a “nonsensical, crazy budget.”

“The time for hard knocks has come for Mr. Reagan,” O’Neill insisted, adding that House Democrats will be trying to focus public attention on the severity of the domestic cuts proposed in the Administration’s budget.

Tax Cuts Blamed

O’Neill noted that Reagan has enjoyed public approval since 1981 for engineering deep tax cuts, which many economists cite as contributing to a record budget deficit that reached a record $212 billion last year. “He got credit for the tax reduction,” O’Neill said. “Now is he going to take credit for the cuts (required under the balanced-budget law)?”

Congressional Republicans were more restrained. Rep. Silvio O. Conte (R-Mass.), emerging from a White House meeting between Reagan and GOP congressional leaders, told reporters that only “a magician” could accomplish Reagan’s goal of cutting the deficit down to the Gramm-Rudman act’s target–a $144-billion 1987 deficit–without raising taxes or cutting defense spending.

White House spokesman Larry Speakes replied that Reagan remains committed to his budget strategy. “Some voices on Capitol Hill have been saying that the deficit could not be reduced unless taxes go up and military spending goes down,” Speakes said. “Well, they’re wrong, and the President says he is going to prove it.”

Law Mandates Cuts

The Gramm-Rudman law, named for sponsoring Sens. Phil Gramm (R-Tex.) and Warren B. Rudman (R-N.H.), requires across-the-board cuts in many defense and domestic programs if Congress and the President cannot agree upon budgets that steadily hack away at the deficit.

Unless the two branches of government can settle their differences over taxes and spending, more than $50 billion in spending cuts will probably be required when fiscal 1987 begins on Oct. 1, just before November’s congressional elections.

The law faces a legal challenge of its constitutionality, but until the litigation is settled, the government is carrying it out.

The process of implementing automatic cuts to take effect March 1 already has begun, and it moved ahead another step Tuesday as the head of the General Accounting Office issued a slight revision of the $11.7 billion in reductions that were unveiled last week by the White House Office of Management and Budget and the Congressional Budget Office.

Although Miller has said that the first round of spending reductions will not be disruptive, officials in various agencies have forecast hiring freezes, employee furloughs, training cutbacks and other measures. Among the potential consequences, they have said, will be fewer children receiving vaccinations, shorter operating hours at national parks and fewer investigations by the Secret Service.

Brentford have had two offers rejected for PSV Eindhoven midfielder Joey Veerman.

The Dutch club responded to Brentford’s second offer, believed to be in the region of £25m, with the message that Veerman is not for sale.

The Bees are now considering whether to return with a new offer for the 26-year-old, who has 16 caps for the Netherlands.

Brentford remain keen to strengthen their squad before the transfer deadline on Monday but are having difficulty in landing their top targets.

The west London club have also had a £45m bid rejected for Borussia Dortmund forward Max Beier.

Whether Brentford can strengthen in attacking areas could have a bearing on whether DR Congo forward Yoane Wissa joins Newcastle.

Wissa has told the club of his wish to move to St James’ Park this summer.

Newcastle have seen two offers for Wissa turned down – the latest worth £30m plus £5m in add ons.

Gov. Gavin Newsom’s political ambitions have reached a new low. In his efforts to look like a “fighter” ahead of a potential run for the presidency in 2028, he’s willing to ignore democratic rules in pursuit of political aims, setting aside the state’s independent redistricting system to counter Texas Republicans’ proposed partisan gerrymander. Newsom and his allies want to maximize the number of California Democrats elected to Congress in next year’s midterm elections.

In 2008 and 2010, California voters passed ballot initiatives that gave the power to draw the state’s legislative and congressional district lines to the California Citizens Redistricting Commission, a 14-person independent body composed of five Democrats, five Republicans and four people who are registered with neither of the two major parties. Potential commissioners go through an extensive vetting and selection process (which the state Legislature participates in) and are prohibited from many forms of political activism, including donating to candidates, running for office or working for elected officials.

Since the latest redistricting, in 2021 — triggered as usual by the constitutionally mandated decennial census — the map crafted by the commission has survived legal and political challenges, and the current districts are set to be in place through the next round of redistricting in 2031.

Now Newsom wants to prematurely redraw the lines and craft his own partisan gerrymander for the November 2026 midterm elections, wresting control of the process away from the commission and giving it instead to the Democratic majority in the state Legislature. Last week, Newsom confirmed that he will call a special election to get voter approval for this end-run around the commission, but even dressed up with a vote, this is cynical politics, not democracy, at work.

Newsom’s excuse is the sudden partisan redistricting Texas Gov. Greg Abbott and President Trump are backing to increase the number of Republicans elected to Congress from that state, and in turn, to enhance the party’s chances to retain control of the U.S. House of Representatives.

California Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas (D-Hollister) calls the Texas action a “Trumpian power grab,” and Newsom assails it as the “rigging of the system by the president of the United States.” (Recent public opinion research conducted by Newsom’s pollster revealed that the public is more likely to support a California redistricting maneuver if the fight has Trump, not Texas, as the central villain.)

But two wrongs don’t make a right.

A key difference between the proposed line redrawing in Texas and the California plan is that the former, however brazen, is legal and precedented, while the latter specifically contravenes California law and the expressed will of the state’s voters. In Texas, legislators are entrusted with drawing district lines, and a mid-decade partisan gerrymander they executed in 2003, again to boost Republican representation in the U.S. House, was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court (except for one district whose lines violated the Voting Rights Act).

But California voters explicitly placed the drawing of district lines in the hands of the independent citizens’ commission to take politicians out of the process. Commissioners draw district lines based on numerous factors, including laws, judicial decisions and population shifts. They’re bound by a basic rule: District lines cannot be drawn to purposefully benefit a specific party or candidate. And all the commission’s deliberations must happen in public. The maps they’ve devised have been criticized by both Democrats and Republicans; and that’s one of the many reasons why California voters entrusted the commission with this important power.

If Newsom gets his way, California’s districts for the 2026 midterm will ensure the election of as few Republicans as possible. Recent reports suggest that his gerrymander will mean Republicans win only four out of 52 House seats (9%), compared with the current California delegation, which includes nine Republicans (17%). Republicans make up about 25% of California’s registered voters and statewide Republican candidates have won roughly 40% of the vote over the last few election cycles.

The fact that Newsom’s plan returns the power to redistrict to the citizens commission after the midterms makes it no less a subversion of the democratically expressed will of California’s voters. To add insult to injury, the cost of the special election to ratify the scheme is estimated to be about $60 million in Los Angeles County alone, with statewide costs likely exceeding $200 million.

By bending electoral rules in service of their own political interests, Newsom and California Democrats become no better than Abbott and Texas Republicans. And Newsom’s hypocrisy strains the credibility of his argument that Trump and his allies are diminishing democracy.

If Newsom moves forward with his cynical plan, Californians will at least have the power to reject it at the ballot box this November. Voters should reinforce their commitment to minimizing the role of partisanship and politics in redistricting, and to the independent California Citizens Redistricting Commission.

Lanhee J. Chen, a contributing writer to Opinion, is an American public policy fellow at the Hoover Institution. He was a Republican candidate for California controller in 2022.

More on Isak

The dramatic move came as Liverpool REJECTED Bayern Munich’s initial £58.6m bid for Colombian winger Luis Diaz while they are trying to encourage a high-price auction between AC Milan and Saudi money-pots Al-Hilal for Uruguayan Darwin Nunez.

But it is the stunning stepping up of the Reds’ long-term interest in Alexander Isak that has caught Newcastle on the hop, especially as boss Eddie Howe was hoping they were looking to play France under-21 star Etitike alongside

Liverpool chief Arne Slot has led the club’s mourning over the tragic loss of Portuguese star Diogo Jota following his car crash death earlier this month.

Slot and the Anfield hierarchy, though, are also aware that the start of the new Prem season is now less than a month away and that putting together a squad able to retain their crown is critical.

Newcastle are believed to value Isak at £150million, a sum that would be prohibitive even for Liverpool.

But a record-breaking bid, freeing up funds for Howe to bolster his squad ahead of a Champions League campaign in addition to the domestic demands might make Toon bosses think again.

Frankfurt are willing to sell Etitike but their starting price is £85m, although there may be wriggle room for negotiations.

Liverpool’s response to Bayern’s Diaz offer – the German champions fear they will be without Jamal Musiala for the entire season after his horror leg break in the Club World Cup – was a flat rejection although they are looking to offload Nunez.

Manchester United have had an improved bid worth up to £62.5m for Bryan Mbeumo rejected by Brentford.

United have bid £55m plus £7.5m in add-ons for the 25-year-old.

They had a bid of £45m plus up to £10m in add-ons for the Cameroon forward turned down earlier this month.

United are looking to add goals to their side having already signed forward Matheus Cunha from Wolves for £62.5m.

Sources have suggested Brentford would want at least the same fee as Wolves have received for Cunha up front before they agree to the sale of a player who still has a year left on his contract.

Mbeumo scored a career-best 20 goals for Brentford last season and contributed nine assists.

United may face competition from elsewhere, with new Tottenham manager Thomas Frank keen to be reunited with Mbeumo, while there has also been interest from other Champions League clubs.

An international colleague of United goalkeeper Andre Onana, Mbeumo is likely to miss four weeks of the 2025-26 campaign because of Cameroon’s participation in the Africa Cup of Nations in Morocco.

Cameroon play Gabon in their opening group game on 24 December.

Mbeumo joined Brentford from French club Troyes in 2019, when the Bees were still in the Championship.

He has scored 70 goals in 242 appearances in all competitions, helping the west London club earn promotion to the top flight in 2021.

June 3 (UPI) — Dr. Santa Ono, the former president at the University of Michigan, was rejected Tuesday as the next president at the University of Florida amid backlash from Republicans over his earlier support of diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives.

Tuesday’s decision by the 17-member Board of Governors comes one week after UF’s Board of Trustees unanimously approved Ono as the finalist.

Ono was on track to become one of the highest paid public university presidents in the country. He was due to sign a five-year contract with a base salary of $1.5 million and incentives to earn as much as $15 million over the life of the deal.

Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis, who signed the 2023 bill banning DEI initiatives in public colleges, delivered a lukewarm response when Ono became the presidential pick, saying Ono’s statements made him “cringe.”

Other Republicans, including Sen. Rick Scott and Reps. Byron Donalds and Greg Steube expressed outrage.

“The UF Board of Trustees has made a grave mistake,” Steube wrote in a post last week. “Dr. Ono gave it his best ‘college try’ walking back his woke past, claiming he’s now ‘evolved.’ But I’m not sold. This role is too important to gamble on convenient conversions.”

Republican state Rep. Jimmy Patronis also questioned the presidential search committee’s decision to make Ono the sole finalist.

“UF sets the benchmark for education nationwide. There’s too much smoke with Santa Ono. We need a leader, not a DEI acolyte. Leave the Ann Arbor thinking in Ann Arbor,” Patronis wrote on X.

During questioning for the role, Ono stated he believed DEI programs do more harm than good. He said he closed the University of Michigan’s DEI offices in March and vowed DEI would not return to Florida’s campus, if he were president.

“The fact is some of my past remarks about DEI do not reflect what I believe, and that evolution did not take place overnight and it was shaped over a year and a half of thinking, discussions, listening to faculty, staff and students and their thoughts on the DEI program,” Ono said.

Ono, who was criticized for allowing an encampment of pro-Palestinian protesters to remain at the University of Michigan for a month, vowed last week during questioning to fight anti-Semitism at the University of Florida.

“Let me be very clear: based on my experience, I believe that anti-Semitism is not just one form of hatred among many,” Ono said. “It is a uniquely virulent and persistent threat, especially on college campuses today.”

Manchester United captain Bruno Fernandes confirms he rejected big-money Saudi move to stay at Old Trafford.

Bruno Fernandes has confirmed he rejected a huge offer from Saudi Arabia and chose instead to stay at Manchester United, saying he wanted to “continue to play at the highest level”.

Speaking to media in a Portugal camp ahead of Wednesday’s Nations League semifinal against Germany in Munich, the football midfielder confirmed he received an “exciting offer” from Al-Hilal but wanted to be part of manager Ruben Amorim’s rebuild at Old Trafford.

Reports said Al-Hilal were willing to pay United up to 100 million British pounds ($135m) for the 30-year-old Portugal international.

“The president of Al-Hilal called me and asked me if I wanted to move there,” Fernandes confirmed, saying the club “waited for me to think about my future”.

“I talked to the gaffer and he asked me not to go,” Fernandes revealed, adding: “Man United said they didn’t want to sell me.

“They said if I wanted to go, I could, but they didn’t need the money.”

The player said a transfer would have been “easy” with several Portuguese players already in Saudi Arabia, including Cristiano Ronaldo, Joao Cancelo and Ruben Neves, but added: “I want to play at the highest possible level.

“I want to play major competitions. I know I still can, and I want to be happy doing the thing I love the most.

“For better or worse, this is how I see football and I’m passionate about football and this is the decision I’ve made.”

Man United ‘need’ Fernandes

United endured their worst finish of the Premier League era, finishing 15th. They also lost the Europa League final to Tottenham.

United captain Fernandes was one of the few players to emerge with credit from a disastrous season, scoring 19 goals and making 19 assists across all competitions.

Former United captain Gary Neville, now a Sky Sports pundit, said the development was “significant”.

“I think that there was an element of this situation that meant United getting that level of money, for someone of Bruno’s age, obviously, you couldn’t say that it would have been a bad deal,” he said.

“But, on the other hand, Manchester United’s star player – only player, at times – for the last four, five, six years, has been Bruno Fernandes. He’s so important.”

Neville added: “To turn that money down at a point where Manchester United are at their lowest ebb and say, ‘No, I want to fight through this, I want to see it through the other side, I want to come out and achieve things,’ I think it says a lot about him as a person, as a character.

“The club needs people who are going to run through a brick wall for them.”

United are expected to be busy in the transfer market as Amorim reshapes his under-performing squad.

The club have already signed Brazil forward Matheus Cunha from Wolves and are being heavily linked with Brentford forward Bryan Mbeumo.

Departures could include Jadon Sancho, Marcus Rashford, Antony and Alejandro Garnacho.

Fernandes has made 290 appearances and scored 98 goals for United since his 47 million pounds ($63m) move from Sporting Lisbon in January 2020.