Real Madrid and Liverpool struck on a deal for Alonso?
€32 million offer has been accepted.
If it is true then what do you think?
Josh, study pelligrini...
he coaches the 4-2-3-1
Alonso is Lass partner in the mid with kaka in front of them :P
- Me llamo JoshLv 71 decade agoFavorite Answer
Horrible decision, they already got Lass Diarra at defending midfielder and Kaka at attacking midfielder. Real Madrid make me angry again.
- 1 decade ago
I think it's not wise to spend that amount of money for Habi Alonso, he is a good player, he does worth that money, but Real spent a lot of money this season, acquired all top list players, C.Ronaldo, Kaka, Benzema. They have Diarra, Gutti, Gago, De La Red who plays the same position, defensive midfield.
It's not that best deal, but Alonso's transfer was £10 million in 2004 from Real Sociedad. So current transfer price is £27.2 million after 5 years. Benitez is very creative coach, he has a lot of opitions to fill his position. This is a good deal for Liverpool.
He is 27 years old. He can quickly become 1st team player. I see great potential in Real to become Champions this year. A lot good players in the squad. I can say it's a dream team. Spain is home of Alonso and he will be paid good money. It is a good decision for AlonsoSource(s): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xabi_Alonso http://www.realmadrid.com/cs/Satellite/en/First_Te... http://blogs.soccernet.com/onthemove/archives/2009...
- Anonymous1 decade ago
Ya their pretty DamN close to accepting the deal. However there is still a bit to go because Real have to take the price, ist pretty high. But most likely the will. The only reson pool is selling him cause they already have a replacement- aquillani for 19 million of the selling money of alonso. However, i think pool are shooting themselves in the head for selling alonso, he is amaing. Free-kicks, skills, etc. Plus aquillani is good but nothing compared to slonso, so they're best bet is to NOT SELL!!!
- XavierLv 51 decade ago
last time i heard it was a 26 mil deal, but this was on an article from July 28, so they mightve changed it: