‘British bidder' for Telegraph vows to fight on
Dovid Efune, the publisher of The New York Sun website, made an appearance on Sky News on Sunday to insist that his 'British bid for The Telegraph is alive and well, and not going anywhere'.
Mr Efune has secured financial backing from the hedge fund manager Jeremy Hosking and Nadhim Zahawi, the former cabinet minister. They are attempting to contrast their Britishness with RedBird, an American private equity firm which is seeking to acquire The Telegraph alongside British minority investors.
Mr Efune faces a steep challenge. On Friday RedBird announced an agreement in principle to take majority ownership of The Telegraph from IMI, the UAE's media investment arm.
The British-born publisher said: 'What's been announced is an agreement in principle. And if the history of The Telegraph's ownership saga teaches us anything, it's that the ownership of The Telegraph and, frankly, any other crown jewel of British public life, will not be determined by means of a press release.
'The British public will yet have their say via their elected representatives, The Telegraph's staff and The Telegraph's readers will have their say, as will the rest of the British press.'
RedBird IMI, a joint venture between RedBird and the UAE, majority funded by the Gulf state, was blocked from taking full control of The Telegraph last year following an outcry over press freedom.
Now, RedBird's founder Gerry Cardinale is working to make RedBird the controlling shareholder, with IMI expected to retain a passive stake of up to 15pc.
Mr Efune said: 'There are quite a lot of questions surrounding RedBird themselves, obviously – where does their capital come from?'
Mr Cardinale, who also controls AC Milan and is set to become a major shareholder in the Hollywood studio Paramount, has said none of the money that RedBird will use to acquire The Telegraph will be drawn from sovereign sources.
Mr Efune added: 'I suspect that because of all of these questions that surround it, there will need to be a public interest intervention, likely an in-depth investigation, which means the saga of The Telegraph could take another year to resolve.'
Enders Analysis, a media industry research firm, said last week that Mr Cardinale's status as a newcomer to news publishing meant the regulatory process could be smooth and complete by September. The potential involvement of Lord Rothermere, the owner of The Daily Mail, as a minority shareholder alongside RedBird could complicate matters.
But it is unclear how in practice Mr Efune hopes to disrupt the sale. IMI has publicly endorsed RedBird's planned takeover of The Telegraph, saying it will 'secure its future and enable it to thrive for years to come'.
Mr Efune, who prior to acquiring the defunct New York Sun and reviving it as a subscription website was the publisher of Algemeiner, a Jewish community newspaper, has shown great persistence in his pursuit of The Telegraph, however. He emerged as the winner of an auction back in early October last year, but has struggled since to raise the necessary funds.
Even now, by his own account Mr Efune's consortium has only 'the bulk' of the capital, although he has said he remains in talks with potential backers.
His 11th-hour appeal for more time has come wrapped in the Union flag.
He said: 'At the end of the day, I expect that most Britons would want to see The Telegraph in British hands should there be a choice – and there is a choice, a clear choice, and we are 100pc committed to seeing it through.'
The approach won rhetorical support this weekend from Lord Ashcroft, the Conservative donor and publisher. In a post on X he said Mr Efune was 'seeking British investors for an alternative to foreign ownership … I wish him well'.
Mr Efune has not said whether he envisages the UAE retaining a stake and has not always been so focused on securing British finance. He initially sought to raise funding from American hedge funds. They all declined to invest in his proposed deal after he was named preferred bidder.
In November it was reported that Sir Mohamed Mansour, the Egyptian-born billionaire and former Conservative party treasurer, was in advanced discussions to bankroll the bid.
A former minister under the dictatorship of Hosni Mubarak, Sir Mohamed ruled out participating, following questions from The Telegraph. They covered topics including the regulatory scrutiny his political past and business interest might face.
Mr Efune then turned to Leon Black, the billionaire former boss of the Wall Street giant Apollo Global Management.
Mr Black pulled out of detailed discussions to back the bid after The Telegraph asked questions about potential regulatory scrutiny of his regrettable relationship with the paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein, and legal problems related to it.
These incidents appear to have frustrated Mr Efune, who on Friday complained that the 'turbulent undertaking' of raising finance had faced 'unwanted interference'.
One possible tactic for Mr Efune's consortium is a legal challenge against the Government's handling of The Telegraph if and when it decides to approve the RedBird takeover. Mr Hosking is said by those who have worked directly with him to have an unusually strong appetite for litigation.
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time Magazine
7 minutes ago
- Time Magazine
Tracking Trump's Tariffs
President Donald Trump's on-again, off-again approach to his signature tariff policy has taken global economies on a rollercoaster in just the first six months of his second presidential term. Trump slammed nearly every country in the world with tariffs as high as 50% on April 2, so-called 'Liberation Day.' A week later, he announced a temporary reduction that was meant to end July 9, during which time he said he'd negotiate '90 deals in 90 days' to re-balance U.S. trade relationships. But as that deadline neared, Trump announced a new deadline of Aug. 1 and began unveiling a slate of new tariffs on more than a dozen countries. Throughout this all, Trump has also announced sectoral tariffs on cars, steel, aluminum, and copper, as well as threatened countries appearing to align against American interests, like members of the intergovernmental organization BRICS, with additional tariffs. Read More: Trump's Trade Deals, Negotiations, and New Tariffs for Each Country On the eve of Trump's Aug. 1 trade deal deadline, the White House once again unveiled new tariff rates on much of the world, most of which will take effect Aug. 7. For countries with which the U.S. has a trade surplus—meaning that it exports more to those countries than it imports from them—the 'universal' tariff is 10%, which remains unchanged from April 2. For countries with which the U.S. has a trade deficit, the new baseline rate is 15%, which will apply to around 40 countries. More than a dozen other countries will face higher tariff rates, either imposed by Trump in a more recent announcement or obtained through trade agreements with the U.S. The U.S. has reached trade deals or framework agreements with a number of countries: the European Union, Indonesia, Japan, Pakistan, the Philippines, South Korea, the U.K., and Vietnam. The U.S. also reached an agreement with China, although the two sides are continuing to negotiate the details ahead of a later deadline of Aug. 12, which the White House has indicated could be extended. And Trump has granted Mexico a 90-day extension to facilitate further trade talks. The White House has bragged about raising more than $150 billion from tariffs over the past six months, while Trump has said 'tariffs are making America GREAT & RICH Again.' (A Monthly Treasury Statement from June shows that the government has collected around $108 billion in customs duties since October 1, 2024, while the Treasury Department reported the collection of upwards of $28 billion in duties in July.) Revenue from tariffs is likely to increase as higher tariffs for dozens of countries go into effect. Many economists, however, say tariffs are effectively a tax on American consumers and have warned that trade tensions could trigger a U.S.—or even global—recession. Here's a breakdown of all Trump's tariffs. Trump's 'reciprocal' tariffs Trump has said his tariffs are aimed at balancing the U.S.'s trade relationships with the rest of the world in two main ways: firstly, by pressuring countries to negotiate trade deals more favorable to the U.S., and secondly by incentivizing firms to bring manufacturing back to the U.S. The President has railed against the country's trade deficits with much of the rest of the world, though he's also imposed tariffs on countries that the U.S. has a trade surplus with, like Brazil. It's true that the U.S. imports much more goods from most countries than it exports, but economists have pointed out that that's a position many other countries are striving to be in. The U.S. exports mainly services—like banking services, software, and entertainment—while many poorer countries have much larger and lower-paying manufacturing sectors. Economists have also said tariffs aren't necessarily an effective way to address trade deficits and are instead likely to cause higher prices for American consumers, unsettle American businesses, and erode trust between the U.S. and its trading partners, leading trade and diplomatic partnerships away from the U.S. in the long term. Trump's 'Liberation Day' tariffs, imposed April 2, were 'reciprocal' based on what he said were tariffs and other manipulations against the U.S. by other countries, although economists have criticized his method of calculating those rates: each country's trade surplus with the U.S. was divided by its exports to the U.S. and then divided by two. It's not yet clear how the new rates, some of which Trump began announcing July 7 in 'letters' sent to each country and shared on his Truth Social platform, were determined. Trump has said they are based on countries' 'Tariff, and Non-Tariff, Policies and Trade Barriers.' For certain countries though he cited reasons unrelated to trade. The 50% tariff on Brazil, for example, is based partly on what Trump called a 'Witch Hunt' against the country's former President Jair Bolsonaro, a Trump ally who has been charged with attempting to launch a coup to stay in office in 2022. Other Trump tariffs Trump has also imposed tariffs on specific sectors, including a 25% tariff on cars and car parts and a 50% tariff on most foreign imports of steel, aluminum, and copper. Several more sectoral tariffs may be introduced pending Section 232 Commerce Department investigations, such as on semiconductors, pharmaceuticals, critical minerals, and commercial aircraft and engines. Imports subjected to section 232 tariffs do not always 'stack' on top of other tariffs. For example, a car imported from overseas will be tariffed at 25%, but will not be subject to tariffs on aluminum, steel, or other 'stacking' tariffs. Metals tariffs supersede country 'reciprocal' tariffs but both steel and aluminum tariffs can apply to the same product. Some trade agreements, like the U.S.-E.U. deal, also cap sectoral tariffs at a lower rate. For example, the 15% 'reciprocal' tariff on the E.U. also applies to cars and car parts. Some sectoral tariffs predate Trump's second term. Trump introduced tariffs on various sectors and countries in his first presidential term. In January 2018, he imposed tariffs on all solar panels, for which China is the world's largest producer, and washing machines. In June that year he also introduced 25% tariffs on over 800 products from China. Trump also imposed a 25% tariff on steel and a 10% tariff on aluminum from Canada, Mexico and the E.U. These tariffs set off retaliatory moves from the impacted countries, though most U.S. and retaliatory tariffs from Trump's first term eventually expired or were rolled back. The U.S. and China reached a truce in January 2020 after escalating tit-for-tat tariffs, but former President Joe Biden extended the solar panel tariffs in 2022. Some countries might also be subject to additional tariffs based on political reasons. Trump announced on July 6 that he would tariff countries aligning themselves with BRICS at an additional 10% rate. Among the countries whose new rates have been announced so far, that includes Brazil, South Africa, India and Iran. It's not yet clear whether it affects countries that the U.S. has cut a deal with, like China or Indonesia. Trump has also cracked down on what was known as the de minimis exemption, which exempted small shipments valued at $800 or less from customs duties and declarations. The tax provision, which was introduced in 1938, has largely benefitted fast fashion giants like Shein and Temu, which have sent millions of packages a day to the U.S. Trump closed the exemption for shipments from China and Hong Kong in an April 2 executive order, tariffing the low-value shipments from those exporters effectively at a 120% rate from May 2 (after tit-for-tat tariff hikes). He then reversed course with a May 12 executive order that eased levies on low-value imports. Then, he reversed course again with a July 30 executive order, ending the tariff exemption for all countries around the world.
Business Insider
7 minutes ago
- Business Insider
How the US needs to prepare for a higher-level war, according to an American special ops trainer in Ukraine
To prepare for the next major conflict, the US military needs to forget nearly everything it has learned from two decades of fighting wars in the Middle East, an American veteran in Ukraine told Business Insider. Scooter, who serves as an instructor with the 4th Ranger Regiment of Ukraine's Special Operations Forces, said Russia's invasion offers lessons for the West about how it can prepare for future combat. The American could only be identified by his call sign for security reasons. "The first lesson I would recommend to NATO and the United States is to forget the last lesson they learned," the American said during a video chat from an undisclosed location in central Ukraine. A counterinsurgency, like the ones American forces fought in Iraq and Afghanistan, is "nothing like a conventional war" in terms of the intensity of combat and the types of threats. Scooter, a former US Navy sailor who fought Russia for two years alongside other foreign volunteers in Ukraine's International Legion before eventually joining the Ukrainian Special Operations Forces, said threats that soldiers face in this war — rocket fire from helicopters, fighter jet strikes, accurate artillery shelling — are vastly different from the scenes in the Middle East. "Commanders need to be training their people to deal with a threat, very similar to what we were expecting during the Cold War, with whoever we end up in a war with next," he explained. "They need to be training them for much of the same threat that we would've faced in the 1980s." 'Airpower wins wars' In a modern war, achieving air superiority through the suppression or destruction of enemy surface-to-air missile systems is critical. In the Middle East campaigns of the past couple of decades, this mission was much less of an issue for US forces, which could operate relatively uncontested in the skies. Russia failed to achieve air superiority during the early stages of its invasion despite fielding a force of fighter jets and bombers vastly superior to that of Ukraine. This would come back to haunt Moscow, which is locked in a grinding, attritional fight, unable to make significant battlefield gains. Advanced air defenses on both sides prevent Russia and Ukraine from operating their aircraft too close to the front line, providing the kind of close-air support needed to facilitate maneuvering. Most strikes are carried out from standoff ranges. For US and NATO military planners, the ability to suppress enemy air defenses and establish air superiority — the ability to control the airspace without restrictive interference — will be key in a conventional war against a peer adversary like Russia. And they know that. US Air Force Gen. James Hecker, who served as the commander of NATO's air command before he retired this year, said previously that "if we can't get air superiority, we're going to be doing the fight that's going on in Russia and Ukraine right now." "And we know how many casualties that are coming out of that fight," he said. Given the dangers of failing to achieve air superiority, Scooter said he "would suggest to our leadership to make the quality of our pilots, maintainers, and logistics core a huge priority — if not number one." "In this type of conflict, airpower wins wars," he continued. "Infantry take and hold ground. It's really hard to take and hold ground when you have to contend with enemy artillery and aircraft. The party holding air superiority and the ability to suppress enemy air defense is typically the party doing the bombing of ground troops." Scooter stressed that ensuring squadrons are well-maintained and at solid readiness levels is a significant capability to chase. Even then, there's no guarantee that air superiority can be achieved. Some military leaders have said that there may only be windows of opportunity rather than persistent dominance in the air, but those bursts can be exploited for potential breakthroughs on the battlefield. 'Throw the book away' Lessons learned from Ukraine extend beyond the leadership level and run down to the unit level, down to the soldier. For individual soldiers, it's important to be quick, stay mobile, and avoid drawing unnecessary attention. This means concealing weapons or anything that can make someone a target. Others in the war have told BI that appearing important on the battlefield is definitely something to avoid. Sitting around in a spot can also be a bad decision. "Speed saves. The faster you go, the longer you live," Scooter explained. He said that it's good practice for special operations forces in the US to think outside the box. This might mean working against the training manual or standard operating procedures in situations that might call for it, like evacuating wounded soldiers from the battlefield. "Throw the book away, throw the manual away. Get rid of it, and pay attention to how things are actually done here," Scooter said. "So much of what we train in the United States is completely not applicable to reality." Scooter isn't the first US vet in Ukraine to arrive at that conclusion. One told BI last year that "we've gotten so used to the idea of just fighting guerrilla wars and fucking fighting terrorists and everything else that we kind of forgot what it means to actually fight a war." A critical area of focus for the US will need to be keeping pace with drone warfare, which is rapidly evolving in Ukraine, as Kyiv and Moscow routinely adapt their tactics and unveil new innovations to one-up the enemy. Officials and analysts have said that the US is unprepared for the type of conflict that Ukraine and Russia are locked in — specifically, the drone conflict — and that dramatic steps will need to be taken to step up readiness for that kind of fight.
USA Today
36 minutes ago
- USA Today
Missing missiles: Senators move to replace weapons used in Trump admin's Houthi attacks
Concerns about U.S. weapons stocks rose in July after the Pentagon paused deliveries to Ukraine for weeks during a "capability review" to ensure it had enough weapons for U.S. needs. WASHINGTON – Senators moved to swiftly replenish the Pentagon's ammunition stockpiles, citing concerns they've been severely depleted by the Ukraine war and the Trump administration's two-month bombing campaign against the Houthis in Yemen. The Senate Appropriations Committee voted 26-3 on July 31 to approve a version of next year's defense policy bill that jacks up the Pentagon's $9 billion request to buy and produce ammunition by another $7.3 billion. "Recent operations in the Middle East illustrate how quickly modern warfare can exhaust our arsenal of critical munitions," Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, the committee's chairman, said on July 31. "The administration's request did not fully maximize production capacity for certain critical munitions." Sen. Chris Coons, the defense subcommittee's top Democrat, told reporters it was one of the main areas that lawmakers want to fund far beyond what the Trump administration requested. "Recent experiences like the counter-Houthi campaign in the Red Sea, for example, demonstrates how quickly we're going through advanced munitions," Coons said. "Keeping pace with resupply to Ukraine has been a challenge," he added. Concerns about U.S. weapons stocks arose in July after the Pentagon paused deliveries to Ukraine for weeks during a "capability review" to ensure it had enough weapons for U.S. needs. Some lawmakers have said worries over U.S. stockpiles running low don't justify cutting off Ukraine's weapons. The Pentagon keeps its inventory of munitions classified. Its initial budget request included $2.5 billion to expand missiles and munitions production, and another $1.3 billion for "supply chain improvements," the Defense Department said. The Department "has robust air defense capabilities to protect American personnel and interests around the globe," it said in a statement. "We will not go into our inventory due to operational security, however I can tell you that the DOD [Defense Department] remains postured to respond to any threat." Houthi attacks burned through munitions President Donald Trump's bombing campaign against Houthi militants in Yemen – dubbed Operation Rough Rider – put a dent in U.S. stockpiles. In less than two months, the Pentagon spent at least $500 million on weapons on the operation, according to a U.S. official who was not authorized to speak publicly. Add in the cost of operations and the loss of several aircraft, and the bill tops $1 billion. It also attacked Houthi targets with some of the U.S. military's most sophisticated weapons, said the official who was not authorized to speak publicly. A Senate aide who spoke on condition of anonymity also said the operation had burned through hundreds of millions of dollars in weapons. The Defense Department has not informed Congress of how much the operation expended, the aide said. Over the course of the operation, two F/A-18E planes, valued at around $60 million apiece, accidentally slipped off aircraft carriers and sank into the Red Sea. The Houthis also downed nine MQ-9 Reaper drones, according to reports. Those cost $270 million in total. Trump abruptly cut off the operation on May 6, claiming that the Houthis "say they will not be blowing up ships anymore." That isn't how the conflict played out. The Houthis attacked and sank a Greek cargo ship in the past week and claimed responsibility for a missile launched towards the Israeli city of Jaffa. The Iran-backed group reiterated on July 27 its vow to attack any commercial ships destined for Israeli ports, no matter their country of origin, to pressure Israel to lift its blockade and siege of Gaza. Senators zero in on air defense Out of the $7.3 billion funding increase, the Senate Appropriations Committee wants $5.2 billion to buy more of those weapons. The remaining $2.1 billion would cover the cost of boosting production lines for advanced air defense, chief among them coveted air defense interceptors, including Patriot and THAAD missile systems, which can take out ballistic missiles. Patriots play an increasingly important role for Ukraine as Russia's missile and drone attacks have increased in recent months to their highest intensity in three-plus years of war. Trump said on July 13 he would send Ukraine "Patriots, which they desperately need." European allies have also offered to finance the weapons systems for Ukraine. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said on July 25 that Germany would pay for two systems, and Norway for one. Israel has used THAAD batteries provided by the United States to defend against volleys of Iranian missiles, including during the 12-day aerial war between the two countries in June.
