Carrefour in talks to sell Italy business, reports revenue growth
The sale of Carrefour Italy, which operates 1,188 stores but made a 67 million euro ($78.85 million) operating loss last year, is subject to regulatory approval and consultation with unions, but could be finalised by the end of 2025, Carrefour said.
Separately, Carrefour reported stronger second-quarter sales as price cuts helped to attract more inflation-weary shoppers particularly in France, its biggest market.
Overall, Carrefour's second-quarter sales grew 4.4% on a like-for-like basis from a year earlier, building on 2.9% growth in the first quarter. In France, like-for-like sales returned to growth for the first time since 2023, up 2.1% compared to a year ago.
"Carrefour's business saw a clear acceleration in the first half of 2025, driven by the momentum in its three core countries: France, Spain, and Brazil," Carrefour CEO Alexandre Bompard said in a statement.
Carrefour's first-half sales totalled 46.559 billion euros, up from 44.863 billion euros a year earlier.
($1 = 0.8498 euros)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
11 minutes ago
- The Independent
Sheffield Wednesday players refuse to play friendly as wages are late again
Sheffield Wednesday 's players have refused to feature in a friendly this weekend after the club failed to pay their wages on time for the fourth time in five months. The Championship club were due to face Premier League side Burnley in a behind-closed-doors game but it is understood the Wednesday players are refusing to play. The Owls appointed Henrik Pedersen as their new head coach on Thursday following the departure of Danny Rohl and, just hours later, Saturday's friendly was cancelled as players and coaching staff decided to boycott the match after not receiving July's monthly salary on time. Rohl left Hillsborough on Tuesday during a chaotic summer which has seen Wednesday placed under a number of embargoes because of financial issues. Players were paid late in May and June, while this is the fourth time in the last five months that salaries have been delayed. The club are currently under an English Football League embargo for unpaid transfer fees and owner Dejphon Chansiri is trying to sell the cash-strapped Sky Bet Championship club. It is understood there is increasing concern within the EFL over the growing crisis at the club and that extends to whether Wednesday will be able to fulfil their opening Sky Bet Championship fixture at Leicester on August 10. Thai businessman Chansiri completed his takeover from previous owner Milan Mandaric January 2015 for a reported £30million and the club twice went close to promotion to the Premier League when losing out in the 2016 and 2017 play-offs. Since then Wednesday have lurched from one financial crisis to another. They were first placed under an EFL embargo in 2017 over profitability and sustainability rules and were docked 12 points – reduced to six on appeal – at the start of the 2020-21 season for further financial breaches. The Owls were placed under embargo for late salary payments to players and staff in 2024, while a player registration embargo is also in place for unpaid transfer fees. New boss Pedersen admitted the club were in 'rough waters' following his appointment, with registration restrictions and the departure of several key players leaving him with a threadbare squad. Djeidi Gassama and Anthony Musaba have been sold this summer to Rangers and Samsunspor respectively, while Josh Windass and Michael Smith had their contracts terminated by mutual consent to allow them to join Wrexham and Preston. The latest missed payments to players and staff heaps further pressure on Chansiri, who insists he is willing to sell the club for the right price. He recently revealed he had rejected one consortium's £40million bid, while talks with various other interested parties have stalled.
Telegraph
12 minutes ago
- Telegraph
The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of Gary Neville's money
As a footballer Gary Neville was not known for his versatility. He was a one-club man who trundled up and down the right flank like a plough-horse. So it is heartening to see him switching things up politically. This week he became the latest Labour supporter to turn on them over tax. 'I honestly don't believe […] companies and small businesses should be deterred from employing people,' said Neville, who owns several businesses alongside his punditry gigs. 'So, I think the National Insurance rise was one that I feel probably could have been held back.' Leaving to one side the fact that Sky viewers might not mind living without his rabid commentary, there is a delicious schadenfreude in watching Neville, a noisy Labour fan, change tack. Last June, he even proved his commitment by taking Keir Starmer up the Langdale Pikes for a campaign interview, in what must have been the most tedious man-marking job of his life. Until recently Rachel Reeves has been blessed in her enemies. When she and Starmer broke a manifesto promise to whack farmers with inheritance tax, they couldn't have hoped for a better opponent than Jeremy Clarkson. Here was not some sympathetic turnip-tender on the breadline but a celeb who was on the record as saying dodging IHT was a reason he bought a farm. Number 10 must have rejoiced again in March when Alexander Armstrong, arguably the pre-eminent primetime posho, complained about VAT on private school fees. His quip that he was feeling 'extremely poor' did not land well with those who were actually feeling extremely poor. Now, even Labour's fans are rethinking. Neville was not the first. In February, the Iceland boss Richard Walker, who had supported Reeves' Budget, warned that, while it was right to look at 'levelling the playing field on tax', the Government had 'parked its tractor in the wrong place going after hard-working British farmers'. The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money. Even Gary Neville's. Lower the voting age? Here's a better solution Full credit to Jeremy Corbyn for waiting until Labour had said they would lower the voting age before announcing his new party. The Government thought letting 16 and 17-year-olds have a go at the ballot box might give them the edge in a few marginals. Instead, they might hand a sizeable bloc to Corbo and his band of plucky dreamers, not to mention the Greens and even Reform. Luckily for Keir Starmer I have a solution. Rather than lowering the voting age, he should introduce a cut-off. Many problems in the UK are, we're told, down to our limitless brigades of pensioners. As they don't have day jobs or Xboxes to occupy them, voting provides a welcome distraction. With gilded pensions and houses they bought for a shilling and sixpence, they vote to preserve their interests. But you have to reapply for your driving licence at 70, so why not your voting licence? A short quiz could determine eligibility: should we keep the triple lock? Should the winter fuel allowance be extended to summer? Is the PM too young? Are the policemen too young? Is the Pope too young? I can foresee objections, so how about a compromise: you have 50 eligible voting years in your life and you can choose when to use them. If you wanted to torch them on idealism at 16, you would be free to, but you wouldn't be able to defend your pension later. Either way, surely this would be the kind of bold move Starmer had in mind when he promised 'action, not words'. At least, that's what he told Gary Neville, on a hillside in Cumbria.
The Guardian
39 minutes ago
- The Guardian
The Guardian view on Trump's tariffs: both a political and an economic threat
Donald Trump's 1 August tariffs deadline did what it was always intended to do. It kept the markets and the nations guessing amid last-minute uncertainty. It attempted to reassert the global heft of the United States economy to take on and master all comers. And it placed President Trump at the centre of the media story, where he always insists on being. In the event, there were some last-minute agreements struck this week, few of them fair or rational in trade terms, most of them motivated by the desire to generate some commercial order. Some conflicts are still in the balance. There were 11th-hour court challenges too, disputing the president's very right to play the trade war game in this way. Even now, no one, probably including Mr Trump himself, knows whether this is his administration's last word on US tariffs. Almost certainly not. That's because Mr Trump's love of tariffs is always more about the assertion of political clout rather than economic power. Mr Trump's antipathy towards the European Union drives one example. The pact agreed by Ursula von der Leyen in Scotland last weekend underlines that the EU's aspirations as a global economic superpower exceed its actual clout. The EU could not prevent Mr Trump making European goods 15% more expensive if they sell on US markets. Nor could it stop Mr Trump getting EU tariffs on US goods withdrawn. Equally eloquent about the global balance of economic power is that Mr Trump has not been able to force China to bend the knee in the manner of the EU. China has responded aggressively to Trump's tariff threats, retaliating with tariffs of its own and blocking the sale of commodities, including rare-earth minerals, that the US most covets. Unsurprisingly, this standoff has not produced one of Mr Trump's so-called deals. Friday's deadline has been reset for later in the month. It would be no surprise if it was eventually pushed back further. Mr Trump is not imposing tariffs on the rest of the world in order to promote global trade or even to boost the US economy. He is doing it, in part, because Congress has delegated this power to him, allowing the president to impose or waive tariffs at will. He uses this power for many purposes. These include raising government income without congressional oversight and also, because tariffs are regressive, shifting the tax burden away from the very rich, like Mr Trump himself, on to the middle and working class. But economics also comes way down the field in the list of reasons why Mr Trump is wielding the tariff weapon internationally. US talks with Brazil – with which the US runs a trade surplus, not a deficit – have been hijacked by Mr Trump's grievance over the prosecution of its former president Jair Bolsonaro for trying to overturn his 2022 election defeat. Talks with India are deadlocked because Mr Trump wants to penalise Delhi for buying energy and weapons from Russia. Those with Canada have been hit by Mr Trump's objections to Ottawa's plan to recognise Palestine. The ultimate test of the policy, however, will indeed be economic. For now, financial markets appear to have decided that Mr Trump's tariffs are manageable. If tariffs now raise the cost of goods on US high streets, slowing growth and feeding inflation, as they may, the wider market response could change quickly. In that event, the mood among American voters might even shift too.
