trousers

Actually, it was an 'open letter'.... same effect I guess... http://www.newsroom.barclays.com/Content/Detail.asp?ReleaseID=1494&NewsAreaID=2 26 January 2009 Open Letter from Marcus Agius and John Varley • SIGNIFICANT PRE TAX PROFITS IN 2008 • RECORD INCOME LEVELS ABSORB £8BN OF GROSS CREDIT MARKET WRITE DOWNS IN 2008 (£5BN NET) • RELEASE OF RESULTS AGREED WITH AUDITORS BROUGHT FORWARD TO 9th FEBRUARY 2009 • CAPITAL RESOURCES WELL IN EXCESS OF REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS CREATE LARGE PERFORMANCE CUSHION • NO FURTHER CAPITAL SUBSCRIPTION SOUGHT In view of the events in the banking sector last week, we have decided to communicate now with employees, customers, clients, and shareholders in this open letter in order to address the principal causes of concern which we are hearing. Writing in this way ahead of the release of results is unusual, of course, but the turn of events is also unusual. Our starting point is that Barclays has £36bn of committed equity capital and reserves; we are well funded, and we are profitable. However, we know that our stakeholders want to see the detailed figures for 2008 as quickly as possible. To enable that, we will bring forward the release of our 2008 financial results, as agreed by our auditors, to Monday, 9th February. When we announce our results for 2008, we will report a profit before tax for the year well ahead of the consensus estimate of £5.3bn. This is as reported in our statement to the stock market of 16th January. The profit is struck after all costs, impairment and market valuations. Whilst it includes a number of individually significant items, it mainly reflects strong operating profit generation. The profit includes the gains arising from the acquisition of the Lehman Brothers North American business, and also the gain on the sale of our closed life business. Also included in the 2008 results are some £8bn of gross write downs (£5bn net of own credit, hedging and attributable income) relating to credit market exposures in Barclays Capital. This amount is arrived at by applying year end valuations and marks to market. It is derived on a consistent basis with, and includes, the comparable numbers for the first half of 2008 which were £3.3bn gross and £2bn net. In the interests of clarity and transparency, we are reporting these numbers on a gross and net basis. We will provide extensive details as to the level of write downs and marks by asset class when we report our results on 9th February 2009. Our ability to absorb this level of write downs is derived from the strong and diversified income performance in Barclays Capital and from the substantial revenue generation of our retail and commercial banking and investment management and wealth businesses in the rest of the Group. In other words, these figures demonstrate that although we have been heavily impacted by the credit crunch, our income generation was at a record level in 2008 and has enabled us to withstand this impact and still produce strong profits. As a result of the capital raising announced on 31st October 2008, our capital base has been substantially strengthened in accordance with the capital plan agreed with the UK Financial Services Authority. In consequence, our year end capital ratios, expressed on a proforma basis to reflect the conversion of the Mandatorily Convertible Notes, are approximately 6.5% for the Equity Tier 1 ratio, and 9.5% for the Tier 1 ratio. These ratios are as we announced in our statement to the market of 16th January, and are computed after including the combined impacts on our risk weighted assets of the weakening of sterling and the pro-cyclical effects of the International Basel Accord. On the basis of the above year end capital ratios, we calculate that the Group's Tier 1 capital exceeds the regulatory minimum required by the FSA by an amount equivalent to some £17bn in PBT. This scale of loss absorption capability, when looked at in the context both of the solid and diversified profitability of the Group during the stress test of 2008, and of the substantial write downs that we have taken, gives us confidence that our capital resources are sufficient to manage Barclays safely and prudently even in these difficult markets. For these reasons we confirm in this letter that we are not seeking subscription for further capital - either from the private sector or from the UK Government. Our capital position could benefit further from two other sources, which we describe below. First, on 19th January the UK Government announced a comprehensive package of measures designed to support the UK economy by helping borrowers and lenders. We welcome that package and, alongside other banks, have started a dialogue with the Tripartite Authorities which will enable us to determine the terms on which, and the extent to which, we would wish to insure certain assets on our balance sheet through the UK Treasury’s asset protection scheme. The procuring of insurance would have the effect of reducing capital consumption (which would allow the writing of new business in the UK). Second, the FSA has announced a programme of work to reduce significantly the requirement for additional capital resulting from the pro-cyclical effects of the International Basel Accord. That reduction would be a source of further ratio strengthening. Before closing, we should say a word about current trading. Recognising that 2009 is not yet a month old, and that the global economy will remain weak, we can tell you that customer and client activity levels have been high. As a result, we have had a good start to 2009. In particular the operating performance of Barclays Capital, benefitting as it is from the now completed integration of the Lehman business, has been extremely strong. The trends that lie behind the strong operating performance in Global Retail and Commercial Banking in 2008 are again observable in its performance in January. We take this opportunity to thank the employees of Barclays for staying focused, and also to thank our customers and clients for their business. Marcus Agius, Chairman John Varley, Group Chief Executive -ENDS-

Agree. We'd have nowt to talk about if the club communicated in a transparent, consistent and unambiguous manner.... IMHO of course

Did I read correctly the other day that the FA have extended the transfer deadline to 'first thing' on Monday 2nd Feb due to the 31st falling on a weekend?

Would appear they've caught up with the paperwork now... http://www.londonstockexchange.com/LSECWS/IFSPages/MarketNewsPopup.aspx?id=2076980&source=RNS Regulatory Announcement Go to market news section Company Southampton Leisure Holdings PLC TIDM SOO Headline Appointment of Head Coach Released 16:52 26-Jan-09 Number 2728M16 /**/ RNS Number : 2728M Southampton Leisure Holdings PLC 26 January 2009  Southampton Leisure Holdings plc ("the Company") Appointment of Head Coach The Company announces that, following the resignation of Jan Poortvliet, Mark Wotte has been appointed as the Head Coach of Southampton Football Club with effect from 23 January 2009. Enquiries: Southampton Leisure Holdings 0845 688 9448 David Jones Seymour Pierce Limited 020 7107 8031 Paul Davies

Poortvliet: "You want how much for that sh*t jacket?"

Could our situation with Barclays have eased slighty due to their statement to the LSE yesterday announcing they are in better shape than most pundits predicted?

Agree. Just can't work out why he wasn't installed in the role last July.

What did Crouch say to Lowe and/or Wilde on Friday before Jan 'decided' to stand down?

This is the key line to me: "this was all refused but JP was sacked/resigned and then wotte was given the job so something must have been agreed."

Nothing. But how long do you conduct an experiment before realising it's flawed?

Hmmm....back to 'not adding up' then.... i.e. if the outcome of Crouch's meeting with Lowe and Wilde was "nope, sorry, we don't like your plan Mr Crouch, especially the bit about changing the manager...." then Poortvliet would have surely known later that day that Lowe and Wilde, by virtue of turning Crouch away, had given him a vote of confidence (albeit indirectly)? Why walk away following such backing?

Nice Jersey...

http://www.coloradorapids.com/ Rapids Make Two Additions to Technical Staff COMMERCE CITY, COLO. (Monday, January 26, 2009) - Colorado Rapids head coach Gary Smith announced today two additions to his technical staff as Steve Guppy joins the club as assistant coach and David Kramer returns as goalkeeper coach. Assistant coach Steve Guppy comes to Colorado after serving as a player/assistant coach for the Rochester Rhinos during the 2008 season. Guppy holds over 15 years of professional experience in the highest levels of competitive soccer in Europe and North America. A native of Winchester, England, Guppy's career includes stints with Southampton (1989), Wycombe Wanderers (1989-94, 2004-05), Newcastle United (1994), Port Vale (1994-97), Leicester City (1997-2000), and Celtic F.C. (2001-04). Guppy made his MLS debut with a five-game stint with D.C. United during the 2005 season. He then returned to the English leagues in 2006-07 with Stevenage Borough F.C. Recently, Guppy spent three months training with Aston Villa, as he prepared for the 2008 USL-1 season. A crowning moment in his storied playing career was when Guppy earned a national team cap, playing the entire match for England on October 10, 1999 in a 2-1 victory against Belgium. Kramer first joined the Rapids’ technical staff as goalkeeper coach in June 2008. Most recently, the USSF “A” license holder served as the director of coaching for the Colorado Edge Soccer Club. Throughout his eight-year MLS career with Los Angeles, San Jose, and Colorado, he posted a 1.76 goals against average with 15 shutouts in 106 matches with 98 starts. Kramer appeared in 42 games for the Rapids from 2000-2002, including eight playoff matches. His professional career began with the Monterey Bay Jaguars in 1995, when he helped his team to the USISL Western Division championship. Kramer also played with the Colorado Foxes of the A-League in 1997.

Oo-er....how come we missed this one (apart from there being no mention of it on the OS of course) ?! PFA called in over Jason Euell's dispute with Southampton Jason Euell has called in the PFA for help after a huge row with Southampton executive chairman Rupert Lowe. The midfielder, 31, made the move after weeks of talks about having his contract paid up came to nothing. MLS side Colorado Rapids want to sign him.

Was there any nudity in the dream? May affect my decision to turn up if it turns out to be a premonition rather than a dream....

So, in which case, had Poortvliet waited a few hours to see the outcome of Crouch's meeting with Wilde and Lowe he could well still be here? In other words, he incorrectly assumed that Crouch would be successful with his 'new manager' proposal?

Yep, that would fit. Can someone confirm the chronology though? i.e. did Crouch approach Lowe and Wilde about 'changing things' BEFORE it had been decided that Jan would leave (either of his own accord or with some 'help') or was it AFTER the Jan decision?

Lowe: "Look Kim....this remote control is so easy to use I can operate it behind my back. This might be the first game of the season but I can see this robot idea of your working you know. Just make sure your contacts destroy the TSF Database to remove the evidence though"

"Crouch has had an ongoing dialogue with them since October, but the 2-1 home loss to Doncaster forced him to call a meeting between the three largest individual Southampton Leisure Holdings PLC shareholders. “I put my proposals to them but they obviously didn’t accept them because they went and put Mark Wotte in charge," said Crouch." Erm, perhaps I'm reading too much into this (for once) but if Lowe and Wilde didn't accept Crouch's proposals (which included changing the manager) then why didn't Poortvliet stay in place (whether he was pushed or resigned)? Either they accepted Crouch's proposals or they didn't? All seems a tad coincidental that Crouch come up with a plan which involves changing the manager which is turned down by Lowe and Wilde but the manager change then happens anyway.... Lost.

"Crouch has had an ongoing dialogue with them since October, but the 2-1 home loss to Doncaster forced him to call a meeting between the three largest individual Southampton Leisure Holdings PLC shareholders. “I put my proposals to them but they obviously didn’t accept them because they went and put Mark Wotte in charge," said Crouch." Erm, perhaps I'm reading too much into this (for once) but if Lowe and Wilde didn't accept Crouch's proposals (which included changing the manager) then why didn't Poortvliet stay in place (whether he was pushed or resigned)? Either they accepted Crouch's proposals or they didn't? All seems a tad coincidental that Crouch come up with a plan which involves changing the manager which is turned down by Lowe and Wilde but the manager change then happens anyway. Lost.

Get your boots on....you know it makes sense....

I thought he was a footballer? edit: do we pay him on a pro-rata basis if part of his time during the working week is spent on 'other business interests' ?

Indeed. The comparison with SCW is a valid one. Which makes it even stranger that the club chose not to publicise it. Would appear illogical on the surface.

A trip to Jersey between two away games...sensible?