30 Jun 2014

Done Deal? 'Quality' £10m attacker to reject Spurs & sign for LFC. Personal terms agreed

Liverpool have reportedly agreed a deal to sign Belgium World Cup striker Divock Origi, who has rejected both Tottenham Hotspur and West Ham in favour of Anfield.

According to The Mirror:

* Liverpool have made an £10m bid, and 'agreed terms' with Origi.

* Origi chose Liverpool because of the chance to play Champions League football.

* With Luis Suarez banned until November, LFC are reconsidering the original idea of sending him back to Lille on loan.

When asked last week about transfer speculation, Origi told reporters:

"I always dreamed of playing in the Premier League but now I'm in an important tournament so I'm try to focus on the team. We'll then see with Lille what I'll do."

Some info about 'amazing' Origi:

* 32 apps for various Belgium youth teams.
* 4 apps for the senior team.
* 7 goals in 45 apps for Lille.
* Youngest goalscorer in Belgian World Cup history.

* Started out as a defensive midfielder, and has no problem playing in both positions: “I am comfortable in both positions. I trained to play on the side or in the center. I have no problem with that.”

Belgium have produced a whole raft of superb players over the last five years, including fellow strikers Christian Benteke, and Romelu Lukaku, so let's hope the hot streak continues with Origi.

Spurs defender Jan Vertonghen is certainly convinced that Origi will be a success in England. Over the weekend, he told reporters:

"He [Origi] has the quality to play for a good team in the Premier League and I think he shows it every game. Januzaj is someone a bit like Origi, there’s no pressure and he plays like he’s on the street.”

It takes a certain kind of striker to succeed at Liverpool - Fabio Borini couldn't cut it; Iago Aspas failed, and going back, the likes of David N'Gog, Andriy Voronin, and Fernando Morientes also struggled to make an impact.

Of all the aforementioned strikers, N'Gog - in terms of height, athleticism etc - is the most similar to Origi, and he found it hard to make a a consistent impact at Anfield.

Then again, Daniel Sturridge is also similar to the Belgian (again, in terms of height/athleticism/paces etc), and he is an absolute superstar for the Reds.

Origi clearly has potential, but £10m is expensive for a comparatively untested teenager. Irrespective of the hype, it's still a massive gamble, and there's no guarantee that Origi will do the business.



  1. he looked more mobile that ngog. lets wait and see.

  2. 'Amazing' is a bit of a stretch, but the kid certainly has talent. From what I have seen he is still VERY raw, and although he obviously has the ability to change matches coming of the bench, the acid test will be when he starts games on a regular basis.

    From what I gather, his goal-scoring record during his time in France is EXTREMELY modest. The asking price seems a bit steep to me, but hey if Liverpool have got a spare £9m laying around and want to splash it on a kid that could be anything from a Lomana Lua Lua to a Gervinho.

  3. Any striker who succeeded at Liverpool had one common trait, they wanted to show that they are better than people gave them credit for. Fowler, Owen, Torres, Suarez and Sturridge all had a point to prove one way or other. Does this kid have such a drive? Borini might just have that drive this season.

  4. Not thrilled with the (potential) signing, but it definitely means we are at least contemplating moving on one or both of Borini and Aspas. We desperately need a winger and a left back, so hopefully BR gets on it before the good ones are taken. I have always said (not on this site mind you) that if we have a list of needs that WILL be filled this window regardless, I don't really care what order we get them in. But if we lack prioritization it might end up like January. I'm hoping for the former situation, and that we are just jumping at the opportunity of signing Origi because it showed itself sooner, and not the lack of LB being a priority.

  5. All transfers are risks. Younger player less money less risk? Won't he be playing CL with Lille anyway? I doubt Suarez going will change the deal for this lad.

  6. All signings of this nature are a risk. Hadn't seen him play before this World Cup but he's put lukaku to shame with his performances

  7. Ngog couldn't hit water if he fell out a boat. He was one of many baffling Rafa signings

  8. Seems to have the basic set of skills required and Rodgers will get him early in his career, mould him into the kind of player he needs. It's always a risk but as a club they are investing in young talent and it's the right way to go. Big money transfers can go bust too and it's only easy in retrospect to say that we should have gotten player x, y or z. Rodgers and his team of scouts need to trust their judgement and go with the players they think can make it. Obviously they are doing that. If they get it wrong then they get it wrong.

  9. This has Ryan Babel written all over it.

  10. Difference between Ngog and Origi is that Origi at the age of 19 is deemed good enough to go to the World Cup and has scored whereas Ngog has never been able to make his national side and is 25 now.

  11. With Sturridge and Suarez at the club he's not going to start games on a regular basis just yet. But even if he just makes an impact from the bench that will be more than we had last season. That's why I've been calling for signing Lambert for the last six months as well. You need players who can come off the bench and do something different. Last year that was Aspas. This year that will be Lambert and Origi, hopefully.

  12. How many FBs should we collect, and what for?

    Between Enrique, Can, and Flanagan we have three quality options for LB, and with Robinson (who was always a bigger talent than Flanagan) and Brad Smith we have two youngsters who deserve a chance to compete for appearances in some of the Cup games.

    On top of that we have at least four quality RBs in Kelly, Wisdom, Flanagan, and Johnson. I hope we sell Glenn Johnson to give opportunities to our youngsters before they fall by the wayside (like Flanagan had almost done last season).

  13. Ture, but Ngog is French and Origi is Belgian.

    Now in the past 10 years France have had some outstanding forwards, Henry, Wiltord, Djorkaeff, Trezeguet, Benzema.

    Belgium have had Mirallas, Benteke and Lukaku recently but no idea before them to be honest.

    Toi be fair to Ngog, it is a lot harder to get into the French Team as a striker then in the Belgium Team.

  14. Mr. Point Of View8:33 am, July 01, 2014

    JK u missed robbie keane

  15. Ngog epitomises everything that is mediocre. Even if he were Belgian, he would still not make it into their national team.

  16. I think that the Chelsea game really amplified the need for these players. As well as more attacking players in general.

  17. That's harsh! He had a decent goal scoring record & stepped in for an injured Torres. Yes, he never set the world alight but he did make meaningful contributions!

  18. Muhammad Ibrahim11:05 am, July 01, 2014

    We cant just have 11 players in the squad that will play every game in the season. This is what cost us in last season in the long run. Origi may become a world beater or he may become a dud, or even something in between. Every transfer is a risk, but we have to be willing to take calculated risks, see potential and take our chance. If it comes to it and 3 out of 5 transfers become successful then we will have a very very good record in comparison to years before.

    And 10 MILLION is not much in football these days, it is 10 MILLION because he is not English if he was we would be talking 18 to 20mil

  19. I think it should be more of a case where we try and get to the conclusion whether Ngog was good enough to be selected for the Euro 2008 national team when he was 19 irrespective of the other French players.

  20. So Lallana has been confirmed, that is 3 players now. Who will be next?

  21. 10 Million is nothing in today's fees. Well worth taking a shot on this guy.

    Got to gamble somewhat on youngsters, i remember we weren't willing to gamble on some young lad when Houllier was in charge as we wouldn't pay him enough, Cristiano something ;)

  22. The fact that Liverpool could have had Ronaldo still makes me so angry

  23. Sadly he hasn't the ability

  24. I think though, that me might not have turned the way he did had the played under Houllier and Benitez.