Liverpool Loanee Nuri Sahin Reportedly Close to Borussia Dortmund Return
Nuri Sahin joined Liverpool on a season-long loan from Real Madrid in August, but isn't going to reach the end of the deal. James Pearce of the Liverpool Echo reports the midfielder will return to Borussia Dortmund instead.
Nuri Sahin's stay at #LFC is over. Paperwork on his return to Dortmund should be completed in the next couple of hours.— James Pearce (@JamesPearceEcho) January 11, 2013
UPDATE: Friday, Jan. 11 at 12:15 p.m. ET by Tim Daniels
Borussia Dortmund announced the deal is done on their official Twitter feed.
---End of update---
It's not a surprising development because talk about his stay at Anfield being cut short has circulated since the January transfer window began, but it sounds like a deal is now on the verge of completion. Only minor hurdles seemingly remain.
Expectations were high when Sahin arrived. The playmaker seemed like a good fit for Brendan Rodgers' system, which was just being implemented following the manager's hiring, and had shown flashes of brilliance during his time with Dortmund.
Is moving Sahin the right move for the Reds?
Instead, he struggled to make an impact during the early portion of the campaign and found his path to playing time shrinking leading up to the transfer window.
In turn, the Reds didn't see a reason to keep him with the club until season's end.
Assuming the move gets completed, Sahin will finish his Liverpool stay with three goals and three assists in 12 appearances. The Reds will move forward with a midfield group led by Steven Gerrard, Stewart Downing and rising star Raheem Sterling.
Meanwhile, Sahin gets a chance to return to the club where he first made a name for himself. He played for Dortmund from 2005-11 before moving to Madrid. He made over 150 appearances for the German side, tallying an impressive 36 assists.
The loan didn't work out like either side had hoped and parting ways now is probably the best move for everybody involved. A deal should be done before the end of Friday, according to Pearce.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?