Zuber Issa demands petrol station empire sells off $5bn US arm
Zuber Issa, who owns a 25pc stake in EG, said the company should hive off its American forecourts to a single buyer rather than pursuing a listing of the entire group as planned.
Mr Issa, along with his brother Mohsin, who also owns 25pc, built EG Group from a single station in Bury, Manchester into a major empire spanning hundreds of petrol stations.
EG is now 50pc owned by private equity group TDR Capital, which has been laying plans for a float of the business in New York.
However, in an apparent rebuke to TDR's plans, Mr Issa has called for the separate sale of the US business rather than an outright float of the whole company.
'There are people who want to buy the US assets. It will be an auction process which would get to a clear end goal much quicker [than an IPO] and we can pay the debt off,' he told the Financial Times.
'The shareholders are still thinking about the options. Other options would be trying to sell the US in its entirety. And I think that should be an option we should do'.
New ventures
Mr Issa stepped down as co-chief executive of EG last year and is now a non-executive board member, focusing on his new venture EG On the Move after buying EG's last forecourts in the UK.
EG Group was earlier this year exploring plans to sell off some European assets in countries like France and Germany to offload debt ahead of a stock market listing.
The Blackburn-born brothers founded Euro Garages, or EG, in 2001, after acquiring a single petrol station and proceeding to buy up forecourt sites from oil giants like Esso.
In 2016, they partnered with TDR Capital and merged Euro Garages with its European Forecourt Retail Group, turning it into EG Group. The rapid expansion was fuelled by borrowing, with the return of higher interest rates forcing the group to sell off parts to bring down debt.
In an ill-fated venture, the Issa brothers bought supermarket chain Asda in an £6.8bn acquisition with TDR in 2021. Zuber has since sold his 22.5pc Asda stake to TDR, giving them majority control.
EG Group employs nearly 40,000 people across more than 5,500 sites, serving close to 1bn customers a year. Among its operations in nine countries, the US generates the most revenue.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Revealed: Chagos deal to cost 10 times what Starmer claimed
Sir Keir Starmer's Chagos Islands deal will be 10 times more expensive than he has claimed, official figures reveal. The Government's own estimate of the cost of giving away the British Indian Ocean Territory to Mauritius is almost £35bn, according to documents released under the Freedom of Information Act – far higher than the £3.4bn figure Sir Keir has previously used in public. Labour ministers now face claims that they misled Parliament and the press with an 'accountancy trick' to hide the size of the bill from taxpayers. Under the terms of Sir Keir's deal, the UK will give up the Chagos Islands by the end of this year and lease back the Diego Garcia military base, a facility built there in the 1970s that has been used by UK and US forces. The cost of the agreement has been fiercely disputed. Sir Keir claimed in May that it would cost £3.4bn over 99 years, accounting for inflation and other discounts, but the Conservatives said it would total £30bn. An official document produced by the Government Actuary's Department shows the cost of the deal was first estimated at 10 times Sir Keir's figure, at £34.7bn, in nominal terms. It explains how the cost was lowered by the Government using inflation estimates, then reduced again under a controversial accounting method sometimes used by the Government for long-term projects. The total cost, which ministers refused to release to Parliament, is equivalent to 10 Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers, or more than half the annual schools' budget. Sir Keir now faces accusations that he misled Parliament, because he told MPs in February that cost estimates between £9bn and £18bn were 'absolutely wide of the mark' and suggested the true figure was lower. The document shows that civil servants were first instructed to lower the cost of the deal on paper to £10bn, to account for an estimated annual inflation rate of 2.3 per cent over 99 years. Then it was reduced again by between 2.5 and 3.5 per cent per year using the Treasury's Social Time Preference Rate, a principle that money spent immediately is more value than funds earmarked for future spending. The final figure was calculated to be 90 per cent lower than the cash value of the payments the UK will make to Mauritius over the next century, in what critics say was a deliberate attempt to mislead the public. Writing for The Telegraph (read the article below), Dame Priti Patel, the shadow foreign secretary, said: 'Instead of owning up to the costs, Labour have used an accountancy trick to claim the amount was only a mere £3.4bn. 'We've all known it's a terrible deal with huge costs to hard-pressed British taxpayers. But for months, ministers in public and Parliament have sought to cover up the true amounts.' Foreign Office sources insisted ministers had used a 'standard' calculation for long-term government spending, and denied accusations that it was part of a 'cover-up'. However, other projects announced by Labour have not used the same method, which has allowed ministers to advertise higher spending on popular policies. Angela Rayner has since launched a 10-year affordable homes plan that included inflation-level increases in government spending as part of the cost of the policy – a method not used with the Chagos deal. The calculations behind the deal were revealed in response to a freedom of information request submitted by the Conservatives. MPs have previously requested the document in Parliament but ministers have refused to release it, in an apparent breach of government transparency rules. Darren Jones, a Treasury minister, said in June that it was 'not normal practice' for the Government to release 'corresponding financial analysis' alongside policy announcements. Official guidance by the Cabinet Office says any information subject to FOI should also be released to MPs, while the ministerial code states that departments 'should be as open as possible with Parliament and the public'. Dame Priti is expected to demand a correction and apology over the 'cover-up' from Sir Keir when MPs return from their summer break on Sept 1. Kemi Badenoch, the Tory leader, said: 'It's bad enough that Starmer and Reeves' economic mismanagement has created a £50bn black hole in the public finances, prolonging the cost of living crisis. 'Now our research has uncovered the Government's own figures showing Labour's Chagos surrender is costing the country another £35 billion. Add that to their £50 billion black hole, and it's clear – when Labour negotiates, Britain loses.' A Government spokesman said: 'The Diego Garcia military base is essential to the security of the UK and our key allies, and to keeping British people safe. 'The average cost is £101 million per year, and the net present value of payments is £3.4 billion – this is less than 0.2 per cent of the annual defence budget. 'The deal is supported by our closest allies, including the US, Canada, Australia and Nato. The costs compare favourably with other international base agreements, and the UK-US base on Diego Garcia is larger, in a more strategic location and has unparalleled operational freedom.' Starmer has been caught red-handed lying to the public Keir Starmer and David Lammy have been caught red-handed lying to the British public over the costs of Labour's Chagos surrender deal, writes Dame Priti Patel. This pair of diplomatic dunces have left Britain humiliated, weak, and the laughing stock of the international community. We've all known it's a terrible deal with huge costs to hard-pressed British taxpayers. But for months, ministers in public and Parliament have sought to cover up the true amounts. Even when the treaty was published and we could see the payments schedule, Labour tried to pull the wool over our eyes and deny the costs. When it was asked questions about the cash payments over the 99 years of the deal, it refused to answer. And when reports suggested the cost of the deal could be from £9 billion to £18 billion, Starmer claimed this was 'absolutely wide of the mark' whilst the Foreign Office tried to claim it was 'entirely inaccurate and misleading'. In fact, instead of owning up to the costs, Labour has used an accountancy trick to claim the amount was only £3.4bn – still a vast waste of money. But now we know the costly truth, having dragged the figures out of Government, kicking and screaming, through a freedom of information request. It's an mind-blowing £35bn. That's almost double the entire annual policing budget. Ten brand new aircraft carriers, 70 hospitals or a 5 per cent income tax cut. New prison places to lock up criminals, funding for social care, and millions upon millions of potholes could be fixed, with the £17bn local highways maintenance backlog covered twice ever. The list goes on. Every single Labour minister is complicit in this cover-up. Instead of paying for front line services in Britain and reducing our tax burden, these payments have lead to Mauritius being able to pay down its debt, cut income tax and slash VAT. Just think, as Rachel Reeves plots tax rises in the autumn to cover her catastrophic financial mismanagement, Labour is forcing you to pay for tax cuts in a foreign country. Is it any wonder the Mauritian prime minister has been bragging about how he secured concession after concession from Labour? From more money up front to the removal of a unilateral right to renew the proposed lease on Diego Garcia to the exercise of sovereign rights over the crucial military base, time and time again Britain backed down in negotiations. It's not just Starmer and 'Calamity' Lammy who are to blame for this diplomatic humiliation. Starmer's friend Lord Hermer, the Attorney General, and Jonathan Powell – Tony Blair's top advisor during the last Labour government's dodgy dossier scandal – have both been involved in these negotiations. They must be the worst team of negotiators in history. And it gets worse. Labour has manipulated parliamentary process to deny the House of Commons a meaningful debate and vote. So frightened are they of democracy that they have wilfully misled Parliament and ignored long-standing parliamentary conventions on holding debates and votes on treaties. The scale of the financial cost is bad enough, but Labour's Chagos surrender deal has profound and serious consequences for our national security and defence. This isn't just about paying for the privilege of something we owned last month. This is a critical strategic asset. In a world that is becoming increasingly dangerous, giving away a military base to a friend of our enemies is a supreme act of self-harm. Under the terms of the treaty, we need to disclose key information to Mauritius about the movements of UK, US and our allies' vessels and aircraft around Diego Garcia, and any military strikes we take from there. This is deeply concerning as, in recent years, Mauritius has grown closer to our key strategic threats – China, Russia and Iran – forging new partnerships, including one with Russia just days before the treaty was signed in May. This means that sensitive information risks being handed over to a friend of our enemies. Again, rather than facing up to the truth of what they are doing to our national interest, Labour ministers, including the Prime Minister himself, attempt to baselessly lie their way out of it. Starmer has tried to claim China, Russia and Iran were against the deal and it was necessary for our national security. That could not be further from the truth. China has welcomed the treaty since it was signed, while Iran and Russia have issued supportive statements towards Mauritius securing sovereignty over the Chagos Islands. Senior Mauritian officials have also publicly thanked China and Putin for their support. Starmer and Lammy must think the British public are gullible to swallow their lies. But we all know the truth. Labour has recklessly undermined our national security just because it wants to appease the whims and demands of its Left-wing lawyer and activist friends, and non-binding opinions issued by obscure international bodies few in Britain have heard of. As a result of Labour's stupidity, lies and incompetence, British taxpayers face a huge £35bn cost, our national security and defence capabilities have been damaged, and it has undermined our standing in the world. When Labour negotiates, Britain loses, and friend and foe alike have seen how feeble Labour is at negotiations over the Chagos Islands and will take advantage of us for years to come. Today, it has become all the clearer why Labour's Chagos surrender deal must be ripped up and consigned to the rubbish bin of history – and that Starmer and Lammy are incapable of understanding, let alone defending, the British national interest. Throughout this whole sorry saga, it is only the Conservative Party that has been fighting against Labour's Chagos surrender. We've challenged the Government in Parliament and in the public to the point where ministers are complaining about the pressure we're putting them under. And we'll keep on exposing Labour's lies and failures as we do all we can to oppose this deal, stand up for hard-pressed British taxpayers and fight for our national interests to be put first.
The Guardian
2 hours ago
- The Guardian
The Guardian view on climate finance: crumbling under a second Trump presidency
Earlier this month, as Nordic countries were hit with an unprecedented heatwave and wildfires in the US began spurting 'fire clouds', Barclays pulled out of the net zero banking alliance. The story may have seemed less alarming than extreme weather, but it has existential implications, as the finance sector quietly surrenders its former climate commitments. The initiative forms part of the Glasgow Finance Alliance for Net Zero (GFANZ), a voluntary network of banks that Mark Carney, formerly the UN's special envoy on climate action and now Canada's prime minister, launched in 2021. At the time, the alliance, which encourages banks and asset managers to work towards the goals of the Paris agreement, seemed like an optimistic step in the right direction. Mr Carney described it as a 'breakthrough'. But times change. The election of Donald Trump, whose advisers have waged war on 'climate fanaticism' and 'woke' capitalism, has created an environment of impunity where businesses no longer need to even pay lip service to progress. Fossil fuel companies donated $19m to Mr Trump's inauguration fund. So far, their investment has paid off. Mr Trump has withdrawn from the Paris agreement, used an 'invented' energy emergency to justify the expansion of fossil fuels, opened public lands to drilling, and plans to cut funding for renewable energy. With America reneging on climate action, businesses may feel they can relax. Barclays is the second British bank to leave the net zero alliance after HSBC quit earlier this year. Six of the largest US banks quit just weeks before Mr Trump's inauguration. Some institutions have come under direct pressure from the right: BlackRock left the net zero asset managers initiative, another GFANZ group, after it was sued by Republicans who claimed its promotion of environmental, social and governance (ESG) goals had cut coal production. In each of his annual investor letters from 2020 to 2024, BlackRock's chair, Larry Fink, namechecked climate change. His 2025 letter made no mention of it. The deterioration of GFANZ reveals the weaknesses in relying on businesses to do the right thing. Its goals were always fuzzy: instead of calling for hard limits on the financing of fossil fuels, GFANZ encouraged banks to invest in low-carbon sectors. It has since drifted further from its mission, expanding its membership to companies without net zero commitments. Though it was never supposed to be a substitute for government action, inactive governments welcomed it. Boris Johnson, prime minister at the time of its creation, promised the alliance would help to 'build back greener'. Many green finance initiatives have less to do with preventing climate breakdown than minimising investors' exposure to the risks this creates, such as carbon taxes or curbs on fossil fuels. 'Green ethical investing', writes Adrienne Buller, is a way of betting 'on the likelihood of a greener economy, rather than contribute to bringing that economy into being'. When the risk of regulation wanes, as it has under Trump, so too does the impetus for this style of investing. The lesson is that government action (and inaction) will determine the severity of the climate crisis. Governments need to prohibit fossil fuel extraction, reduce profits through progressive carbon taxes, support renewables and confront powerful interests. The myth that businesses are capable of self-policing has led to a dangerous delay.
Reuters
2 hours ago
- Reuters
Mexico sets minimum export prices for fresh tomatoes
MEXICO CITY, Aug 10 (Reuters) - Mexico has set minimum export prices for fresh tomatoes to protect its domestic production and ensure internal supply after a bilateral agreement with the U.S. expired, Mexico's economy and agriculture ministries said in a joint statement on Sunday. The decision follows Washington's withdrawal in July from a 2019 deal between the two countries which regulated Mexican tomato exports to the U.S.. The Trump administration on July 14 announced a duty of about 17% on imports of fresh tomatoes from Mexico. While the new pricing rules apply exclusively to definitive exports, they don't restrict export volumes or impose maximum prices. Prices will be reviewed annually or sooner if market conditions demand, the Mexican ministries said. Minimum export prices per kilogram are set at $1.70 for cherry and grape tomatoes, $0.88 for Roma tomatoes, $0.95 for round tomatoes, and $1.65 for round tomatoes with stems. Other varieties, such as cocktail and heirloom tomatoes, will also have a minimum price of $1.70. According to official figures, Mexico exported $3.3 billion of tomatoes last year. "This action reinforces the government's commitment to agricultural competitiveness, dignified rural employment, and food sovereignty," the ministries said. The ministries added that Mexican associations of tomato producers have expressed support for the agreement, which entered into force immediately after its publication on August 8 in the government's official gazette.
