Not really. We paid £10m (and now £13m) for his potential, not for an experienced campaigner. You're assuming that we were expecting a significant instant impact for that investment, which given we sent him straight out on loan seems unlikely. At just 19 years old his value to us is unlikely to be fully realised for a few years yet, so declaring him a waste of money at this stage seems to be a bit premature to put it lightly! I suppose it depends on how high you think his potential is.
Given Sturridge's injury concerns we no doubt would've been looking at bringing in another striker in this window, and while not ideal, under the circumstances adding £3m to Origi's transfer fee so we can bring him back into the fold 5 months early is certainly more cost effective than spending £15-20m on another new striker in a more restricted mid-season transfer market.
That extra 3 million on the top of the original 10 million fee makes a 30% increase on what you paid for him originally.
He is unlikely to come in and score goals for you (he's failed to do it in a lesser league) so he's just an extra player in the squad. 3 million in itself is not a great deal but it was unnecessary. That can go to funding a new players wages for a year for instance.
Ideally, you would have done one of the following:
1. Don't loan him out to begin with. Was always unlikely as you paid decent for Balotelli and Lambert was back up.
2. Keep him on loan until the end of the season. You don't lose 3 mil for 5 months of playing someone with no real experience.
I'm not saying he won't be any good but he's unlikely to justify a 3 mil price tag for the rest of this season. It's just not good business to be losing money on players you already have.