Brendan Rodgers is broadcasting the Nuri Sahin loan transfer as a sales pitch that swayed the Turkish midfielder in Liverpool's direction. Nothing can be more untrue.
Sahin had set his heart on coming to Arsenal and it was the club's insistence on a provision to buy him out that became a deal breaker. That and Arsenal refusing to pick up the major share of his weekly wages that would have pushed his loan move to the region of £6m - £7m (over £4m in wages + £2m for the loan) which let Liverpool back into the mix. Paying that much money for a player with no hopes of being permanent does not make economic sense to a club that is well known in the sport for being notoriously tightfisted.
Why would one want to spend so much money on a player who could prove invaluable to the club's success only for him to march right back after the season to Madrid because there is no negotiating a permanent move. It is perverse and illogical. Yes, it is disappointing to lose Sahin, he is an undoubted talent. But we can pay some more money and get a midfielder such as Yann M'Vila on a multi-year contract. They have different strengths but M'Vila is a more traditional holding midfielder. That makes more sense now we've lost Song.
Arsenal's brand of creativity, record of developing players, and competing in the Champions League is what attracted Sahin. If you're going to leave Real to gain match experience then why not play for a club that checks of all those boxes. Liverpool can claim him and give out all the spin but the fact is he was Arsenal's to lose but the reasons he was lost makes for sound economic sense.