Football

Liverpool's £50m Bid for Yankuba Minteh Rejected by Brighton

Liverpool's £50m offer for Yankuba Minteh was turned down by Brighton as they seek replacements for injured players.

20 August 2026Tagblick Newsdesk

AI-generatedWritten by an AI system, editorially responsible — how we work

Archive photo: Liverpool's £50m Bid for Yankuba Minteh Rejected by Brighton — Archive photoPhoto: Doha Stadium Plus · Flickr · BY

Liverpool's recent £50m bid for winger Yankuba Minteh has been rejected by Brighton & Hove Albion, according to multiple reports. The club is looking to bolster its squad with two new wide forwards before the transfer deadline arrives.

The rejection comes as Liverpool seeks to address the absence of Mohamed Salah, who is sidelined following leg surgery. Brighton, however, is not in a position to lose another player after already losing Danny Welbeck to Chelsea and with Kaoru Mitoma currently injured.

Liverpool's pursuit of Minteh is part of a broader strategy, as the club is also interested in signing Bradley Barcola from Paris Saint-Germain. This underscores their urgent need to add depth to the squad following recent player injuries and departures.

Several sources confirmed the details of the rejected bid, highlighting Liverpool's ongoing efforts to strengthen their squad options during this transfer window. Meanwhile, Brighton remains firm in keeping Minteh as part of their roster.

The situation continues to evolve as the transfer deadline approaches, with both clubs navigating their respective needs in the market. Liverpool's interest in Minteh reflects their ambitions for the season ahead.

This item was written by an AI system on the basis of the headlines and short teasers of the independently operating newsrooms named below. We disclose this under Art. 50(4), second subparagraph, of Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 (AI Act). Before publication we check origin and verifiability — anything that appears in only one place is not published — as well as language, substance and legally sensitive content. No separate substantive review of each individual item by a natural person takes place; we therefore do not rely on the exemption in Art. 50(4), second subparagraph, of the AI Act. Editorial responsibility for this publication rests with the person named in the imprint (§ 18 Abs. 2 MStV). Please report errors to [email protected] — we will correct or remove the item. Full reports are available from the sources listed.