EMI could be thwarted by its own ambition Mr de Larrinaga said

“EMI could be thwarted by its own ambition,” Mr de Larrinaga said.Despite the rejection, EMI shares gained 8.4 per cent to 307.5p as a result of Warner’s offer but remain shy of the bid price.Analysts still believe a combination of the world’s third and fourth largest music companies looks increasingly likely. The deal would see EMI’s artists, including Coldplay, Joss Stone and Robbie Williams, come under the same umbrella as Warner’s stars, including Madonna, Red Hot Chili Peppers and James Blunt.Yet issues related to the structure of the deal and the management line-up of the enlarged company need to be resolved before a deal is agreed.EMI has justified the deal by pointing to synergy benefits. Numis Securities estimates those benefits to be in the region of £160m. The broker said: “A merger between EMI and Warner would add very significant value, both in terms of cost synergies and increased scale.”EMI has been fighting to buy Warner for six years after a merger was blocked by regulators in 2000. It might be a case of who blinks first,” said Anthony de Larrinaga, an analyst at SG Securities.

EMI’s bid has been fully underwritten but is dependent on a share placing and the sale of assets.Mr Bronfman and his private equity backers control about 75 per cent of Warner Music’s shares, putting the US company in a strong negotiating position. As a result, Warner’s management is considered to have more flexibility in raising its offer for EMI if it so desires. For its part, Warner has argued EMI’s bid is dependent on an equity placing as well as the sale of its Warner/ Chappell music publishing business. Its cash bid for EMI is not subject to these conditions.”It’s a bit like a Mexican stand-off. Warner’s bid – dubbed a “PacMan” defence after the computer game where one character turns around and eats its pursuer – leaves the music giants locked in a stand-off as they battle for control of what would become the world’s second biggest record company with a 25 per cent market share.
Disagreements over the structure of the deal and which management team will take control of the enlarged company could yet scupper the merger, designed to create a stronger competitor to the current market leaders, Universal and Sony/BMG.EMI described its increased $31-a-share bid, which represents a 44 per cent premium to Warner’s share price before its initial approach in May, as “far superior” to its rival’s revised alternative proposal which values EMI at 320p a share.It is unclear whether EMI has the capacity or appetite to further raise its bid to convince Edgar Bronfman Jr, Warner Music’s chief executive, and his backers to accept its advances. EMI rejected a $4.6bn (£2.5bn) cash bid from Warner Music yesterday, describing the offer as “wholly unacceptable”, and disclosed that it had made an approach last week for its smaller US rival, worth the same amount. Woolwich branches within 300 metres of a Barclays will be merged No job losses were expected as a result of branch closures..

We will then look at building and opening new branches in growth areas where we’re currently not represented.”Woolwich-branded mortgages will be sold across Barclays’ 32,000 branches. We’re going to provide a better branch experience and innovative, hassle-free banking that’s second to none.”We will give a new lease of life to our branch network through refurbishment and, where necessary, relocation to places that are better for our customers. Mr Seegers was guaranteed a pay and bonus package worth £10.8m in his first year.He oversees Deanna Oppenheimer, the US retail banking expert brought in partly to revive Barclays’ flagging mortgage business. Ms Oppenheimer said yesterday: “Today we unveil our plans to transform Barclays into the best bank in the UK, serving more customers and businesses than any of our competitors. Barclays is to cut more than 1,200 jobs as part of a drive to reinvigorate its lacklustre retail bank that will also see the Woolwich name disappear from the high street.

Three call centres will be closed – at Clacton in Essex, Dudley in the West Midlands and Bexleyheath in Kent, the former headquarters of the Woolwich.
Unions were disappointed by the job cuts, but they and the bank said staff turnover, natural attrition and redeployment within Barclays would account for the vast majority of the cuts.The shake-up will see most of Woolwich’s 373 branches re-branded Barclays in February, six years after the country’s third-biggest bank paid £5.9bn for the former building society.Described at that time as “the prettiest girl on the high street” by John Stewart, Woolwich’s chief executive, the acquisition has long been regarded an expensive failure by most experts in the City.Barclays’ ambitions for the takeover to significantly bolster its share of the UK mortgage market and provide a platform for overseas growth were thwarted by the bank’s failure to integrate the Woolwich successfully.Profit margins at the lender are under pressure and Barclays made the wrong call by withdrawing from the lucrative buy-to-let market in 2003, according to analysts.In February, Barclays kicked off the banking reporting season with record £5.3bn profits despite a dismal showing from the Woolwich.The former building society, which historically is responsible for 6 per cent of British home loans, actually lent 3 per cent less in a year when the market grew by 10 per cent as it lost business to rivals, including HBOS.John Varley, Barclays’ chief executive, vowed to put that right and has lured Frits Seegers from the US financial services giant Citigroup to head its struggling retail bank, the fourth man to do so in less than two years. It paid Mr Hamill £300,000 when he left in 2000.After a spell at United Distillers following the Guinness affair, he became finance director of Forte in 1996 when the hotels empire was engulfed by a hostile bid from Granada.Mr Hamill was embroiled in controversy after it emerged in 2003 he owned share options in Collins Stewart. Current views of best corporate governance practice advise that non-executive directors should not own shares or options in companies on whose boards they sit because that could compromise their independence and ability to challenge the board should the need arise.. Before that, he was finance director of WH Smith when Tim Waterstone attempted a takeover.