Liverpool reportedly have their alternative to Timo Werner – Ousmane Dembele. We just don’t think it’s the right move, however.
Mundo Deportivo claims that Liverpool are eyeing up Dembele. The outlet references ‘reports in England’ but says that Dembele is ‘strongly’ in the Reds’ orbit right now.
They’re only looking at Dembele for one reason, though – as an alternative to Werner. Liverpool are no longer sure they want to spend big on the German right now and may need to look elsewhere.
In fact, they may need other options fast, given that Werner’s release clause expires on June 15th. After that, it’s completely up to RB Leipzig whether or not he goes and they may well choose to keep him.
That’s something multiple outlets have backed up. The Mirror went even further, though, saying that Liverpool have outright given up on signing him. The Guardian stopped short of that but do also suggest that the Reds might move on from Werner.
And so Liverpool have apparently turned to an old target. The Mundo Deportivo report suggests the club wanted Dembele back in 2017 when he joined Barcelona but there have been recent links, too.
Sport, for one, claimed back in March that Jurgen Klopp really wanted the Frenchman. So much so, they say he was prepared to spend £80m on him.
What RTK has to say
This really wouldn’t make any sense. For one thing, if Liverpool are looking at Werner then they want a goalscoring striker. Dembele is a creative winger – not what the team needs or what the club seems to want.
Then there’s also the fact that Dembele would reportedly cost the same as Werner. Marca said in April that Barcelona had lowered his asking price to £52m, which is pretty much exactly Werner’s release clause.
If Liverpool won’t pay it for Werner then they certainly won’t pay it for Dembele. His injury record, for one, would put them off any major investment and we’ve detailed that here.
So Dembele wouldn’t be worth the money, isn’t what the club wants, and would cost the same as Werner. There’s just no way we see this one happening.