So good morning, everybody. Thank you for coming to our results day. Today we will follow a slightly different order from what is usual. I will go through the highlights and then I will straight go into the business review. I will be followed by Johan, who will briefly talk about what's after Spring and our technology plans for the future and then Nick will do the usual detailed financial review. So I have to say we have closed a pretty good year of execution and a pretty good quarter. As you all know by now, we have returned to full both service and EBITDA growth in the year, 1.5% revenue and 2.7% EBITDA. This is the first time since 2008. We have a Q4 service revenue growth of 2.5% which is really more a 1.8%, as Nick will explain later. I'm pleased to see stabilization in Europe - first time since December 2010 that we have a 0.5% revenue growth and continuing strong execution in AMAP at 8%. Good cost control. Nick will talk about it. We're today also raising the synergy targets for KDG and Ono, because they're going well. And, as a result, as you would expect with a good year and a good quarter, we have met our full-year guidance; £11.9 billion of EBITDA and £1 billion of free cash flow on a guidance basis. We will talk today about Project Spring. Project Spring has completed, successfully delivered and also successfully impacting the customer perception. We continue to grow in our key areas of growth, 4G data, 3G data. We'll comment this later. I have to say I'm very pleased the enterprise continues to grow, unlike some of our competitors; 2.1% growth in the year. And, most importantly, unified communication we had a very good record…

[Technical Difficulty] opportunity to talk here today and good morning, ladies and gentlemen. There are two key messages that I want you to take with you from this presentation. First of all, as you heard from Vittorio, thanks to Project Spring we have been able to achieve a leading mobile network performance and we will maintain that strong competitive position in the coming years while we improve in the areas where we still think they need to be improved. Secondly, it's about the vision we have for the future. It's about the gigabit society where our customers are going to get gigabit speed, both on fixed and on mobile access, with short latency, enabling any service to be delivered from the cloud. On top of that, as Vittorio said, Vodafone is today the leader in Internet of Things. There are new technologies coming out enabling billions of devices to communicate at the much lower cost points than was currently available in the market. So the strategy, then, to maintain mobile leadership going forward would be to make sure that today where voice is available, video will be available We're talking about having some sort of continuous experience around 10 megabit per second with peak speeds up on gigabit. There's a lot of miles still to get out of 4G in the coming years. We're also going to get lower latencies. Typically today we have between 14 milliseconds and 15 milliseconds latency in today's 4G networks. That's going to come down to sub-10 milliseconds and we will switch on support for Internet of Things in our mobile networks. On the fixed side it's very much about providing gigabit speed to the homes, to offices. And we will also introduce a new technology that will enable us to do rapid deployment to…

Good morning. I would like to first of all thank Goldman for our new low-cost location. It must be the first time ever Goldmans has helped a business lower its cost. The second thing I'd like to thank them for is this step. Obviously, I'm surrounded by giants now in Vittorio and Johan. Anyway, I thought a new venue deserved a new format to my presentation. And what I've done is I've removed a lot of the statutory reporting tables to focus more on the underlying trends of the business so that we have a bit more time in that area. Obviously, I'm more than willing over coffee to debate deferred tax accounting and the pros and cons later. So for the first time since 2008 we can see a positive sign in front of both service revenue and EBITDA at 1.5% and 2.7% respectively. I think what is even more encouraging is the second-half acceleration. I wouldn't call it quite Ferrari acceleration yet but, for a European-quoted telco, this is getting exciting times. The main number I wanted to draw to your attention is this one, EBIT at £3 billion on the right. In FY '15 it fell 24%, the year before that 19%. We, along with the rest of the industry, have been hit by numerous well-known factors whilst continuing to invest in CapEx and spectrum which, in turn, has significantly depressed EBIT and returns. You see from the chart our EBIT decline has moderated in FY '16; down just over 6% year over year. And I see FY '17 being the turning point as EBITDA grows and capital expenditure normalizes. Now, clearly, a key driver of that improvement is top-line growth and there's two points I would like to note on this year-over-year service revenue chart. Firstly,…

Just to conclude, I will not go again through what we have achieved. I just have to say return to growth of service revenues, EBITDA and customer appreciation which, for me, is very important. What are the priorities that myself and my team have for the year? I would say five operational priorities. Clearly, the continuation of the CARE program; very important to stabilize and improve the relationship with customers and, therefore, the monetization of data; More4Mmore across the piece, mobile and fixed; technology road map Johan clearly has a multi-year plan post Spring to bring us in the new space of 2020. Nick mentioned engage with the regulators on avoiding the risk of re-monopolization and having better conditions for our expansion; and then efficiency and margin expansion that Nick has presented. Those are the five things that operationally myself and my team will work on. Of course, we will continue to look at portfolio optimization opportunities and the Indian IPO and everything, with the view of supporting good shareholder returns. That is, as always, our long term Board objective. I would like to ask Johan and Nick to join me now for Q&A and my colleagues also in the front row are here to share questions. And I have a small request, given that I did an extended presentation, I know it's against the culture and the DNA, if you could have one question at a time and not 16. We will start with Paulo, Maurice, well first Paulo, Maurice, John and then we will go back.

So I'll just stick to one question which is just in terms of EBITDA growth, because you've obviously guided towards 3% to 6% EBITDA growth for the coming year, but that's despite 5%-plus EBITDA growth headwinds. So I suppose the question, therefore, is how optimistic are you that these headwinds will eventually fade and, therefore, EBITDA can actually accelerate to something much higher than the 3% to 6% going forward?

If we give you 3% to 6%, it's because we believe that 3% to 6% is the right range. I think I mentioned in my presentation there are some areas that are watch-out areas. Clearly, pricing in Italy is a watch-out area. There are two players, Three and Fastweb, doing things which are not - and Telecom Italia is wobbling a bit in their commercial response. We have to look at that. We have to look at Deutsche Telekom. Deutsche Telekom, I think they liked when we were clearly in a different space, the fact that we're coming back to what it used to be and it should be. They're reacting on subsidies in consumer and on ARPU in enterprise in an aggressive way. We need to see Jio. Jio will come, how they will come, what they will do exactly. So there are three or four areas. Content cost in other markets. Spain is sorted out. We're clearly reiterating that we would prefer to distribute content but if we have to buy, we buy. So there's three or four commercial things that have to be watched out and that's, at this point, difficult to call where it will go.

This is Maurice from Barclays. A question on consolidation life post Hutch/O2. The UK deal failed, whether it was Commissioner Vestager focusing on the creation of a fourth network provider, so structural remedies or maybe the JV structure, but moving on to Italy and your thoughts on the deal there. You've talked in the past about not being supportive of bad M&A. I think only this morning you were saying you were supportive of the EC's decision in the UK to cancel it. So your thoughts on the likelihood of Italy going through, how supportive you'll be on that. And if you think Fastweb as a fourth mobile network operator is a good thing.

Listen, the problem with UK was a specific problem. UK has two network sharing and our network sharing is the one that goes against BT which is the dominant player in the country. Clearly, if the merger that they proposed could strengthen our network sharing, probably the deal would have gone through. But trying to stay in two network sharings and flip flopping between one and the other which, of course, from an economic optimization point of view, sounds good, clearly, was a breach of competition law and a weakening of competition. So I think it was a UK-specific decision and, quite frankly, we support this decision because we honestly think that the EU did not have another choice. The remedies were not good enough. Now, Italy is a different case because there's no network sharing there and the Commissioner will have to make up her mind on that specific case, but it's a case-by-case thing. Our problem with the UK was not an in-principle problem; it was a very pragmatic problem relative to our joint venture.

It's John Karidis from Haitong Securities. Now I'm 1000% clear that it's not Vodafone's policy to promote handset financing. Even so, I'd like to understand what the benefit to EBITDA was from the accounting for handset financing in H1 and H2 of the year you've just reported. And was that only in Spain but also somewhat a little bit also elsewhere?

Nick, do you want to take this one?

So, essentially, we don't have any material handset financing elsewhere. Spain, in terms of EBITDA for the year, benefited to the tune of about £170 million. Sorry, £180 million. Sorry, just to counter, Spain benefited £180 million there and then lost about £110 of increased content costs and regulatory TV tax.

Robert, Deutsche Bank. Just on the revised capital intensity target, it seems from the graphic that that is about fixed. That's where the ambition has been increased. And a lot of that seems to be around fiber. Is that fiber spend more about targeting the consumer broadband opportunity? Or is it about more front haul, backhaul for the virtualization of the ramp? Thanks.

Could I just do one slight correction? So the increased capital intensity was on a number of fronts. It wasn't just fixed. So fixed, yes, we have significant momentum; so higher CPEs, higher builds. That's one. But also we have very good progress in 4G, 3G in emerging markets. So we want to expand our footprint there in mobile. And also we want to accelerate the IT transformation because there is a significant cost opportunity for us to get to that prize quicker.

It's Stephen Howard from HSBC. I wanted to ask you a question about vectoring and the situation in Germany at the moment. Obviously, the Commission is reviewing the decision by the local regulator to permit vectoring and I would imagine this is something you're quite concerned about. What I wanted to know is--

No, quite happy about, happy that they are reviewing it.

I see, happy that they are reviewing. Concerned about the original, quite so, concerned about the original decision from the German regulator. So what I wanted to know was what do you think might emerge from that review? Are you genuinely hopeful that the vectoring decision might be substantially overturned? And is there a risk that this situation becomes very acrimonious and, thereby, destabilizes the German market at just the point when it seems to be showing signs of turning less dysfunctional? Thanks.

You are really smart and you asked two questions in one but I will answer both questions about the state of the acrimonious market and the vectoring one. First of all, position of Vodafone on vectoring. Vectoring is an intermediate technology. Nobody can discuss that. Fiber is the ultimate solution that we all need to have in the true gigabit market, gigabit society because you need fiber for that; two-ways, latency, all these things in the end. Point number one. Point number two. Vectoring as an intermediate technology has re-monopolization risks because it's a technology that, essentially, the incumbent can deploy to his own advantage. Hence, it needs to be looked very carefully at. What are the four conditions that Vodafone is strongly - I don't know if it will emerge but should emerge from the review? We welcome the review of the EU. It should come with an answer to four questions. One, we want to be able to connect at the central office level, so up in the hierarchy not down in the hierarchy because otherwise that's anti-competitive. Second, we want to be able to use whatever technology we want to connect customers, to connect base stations, to connect enterprise, to do what we need, regardless of constraints that artificially the incumbents are putting. Third, we want a price which is competitive to the current VULA situation or the current best VULA situation. And I don't think this is unreal any more. And fourth, something that nobody discusses, we cannot continue to live with service levels from incumbents at 60% to 65% which means one out of three customers is not served. We should go to the 90%, 95% that we have in cable or in other things. These are not unreasonable requests. These are about competition and decent operating life. And I think we welcome the decision of Commissioner Oettinger to look into this because it is not about being against an intermediate technology; it's about being against re-monopolization. Acrimonious situation in Germany, I really hope this is not the case. I know that Deutsche Telekom took this pretty badly and, probably, they attribute this to us. I think Deutsche Telekom is a great company. I think they have done a fantastic job of turning the company around and re-launching it also in Germany. They should accept that there is a market situation that requires competition and Vodafone will be a player there. If they accept that I don't see why it should turn into anything acrimonious. It's just the normal way regulation and competition should work. It's the opposite which would be strange, like the re-monopolization thing.

It's Emmet Kelly from Morgan Stanley. You showed a graph of acquisition costs and retention costs. I think if we look at the graph these have fallen from consuming 20% of revenues to broadly 18% of revenues. How much further lower can acquisition and retention costs go? And what would the key drivers be? Thank you.

Well I don't know if I can come up with a magic number. I think there are a couple of things I'd factor in. Increasingly, as you've heard from Vittorio, we're driving on the fixed side. We're driving more convergence. When you look at convergence you've seen the churn profile reduce. You've seen a number of people do SIM-only plans, so separation of handset. You're seeing handset cycle times maybe in a couple of areas go a little longer. So I think there are a number of reasons why combination of market structure, combined with our efficiency and our approach to commission and channels, can improve it further. But, obviously, it does depend on market situations. So, as Vittorio highlighted, Germany has got a little bit of channel competition at the moment in terms of increased subsidy by some of our competitors. We need to remain competitive. If everyone is more rational then, of course, there's opportunity.

It's Guy Peddy from Macquarie. Just a quick question on the UK, BT have a quite aggressive set of revenue synergies and a large part of that they're targeting from UK enterprise. And the competition in there is they combine fixed with mobile. Have you got anything in your plans for 20 - do you see anything in your plans for 2016/2017 as a potential competitive challenge from BT? Or do you think that is still further out into 2018/2019, rather than the next financial year?

No I think BT is already a competitor and will become a stronger competitor the more they combine fixed and mobile. Enterprise is the place where I feel, quite frankly, better because we had a good performance in enterprise. Enterprise fixed in the UK is actually good. And we traditionally had also very good experience in mobile. So, for us, combining fixed and mobile in enterprise in UK is less of a challenge. If anything, it's more on residential where we need to ramp up our capabilities. We're starting to do it. But I don't feel that there is a special new thing happening specifically on the enterprise front.

It's Andrew Lee from Goldman Sachs. Just a question on slide 43 where you talk very clearly about the underlying EBITDA growth stripping out those temporary effects. Just to give us an idea of the sustainability of that growth, what proportion of that underlying growth is coming from efficiency gains? And what proportion is coming from the operational gearing and mix effects, if we strip out the cost of analyticals?

What I was trying to show from that chart was that, if you compared it to H1, the gross margin leverage is increasing. So what we're really focused on is driving the gross margin up. At the same time, if we can hold down customer costs and make more efficiencies, hold down support costs, once we annualize on the impact of the footprint of Spring, then I would like to think that all the new technologies coming in and the fact that it's a shiny new network is going to be pretty efficient. So I would like to think that we've got good opportunity and as one of the key drivers in terms of operational leverage going forward is holding down the rest of the costs.

It's Simon Weeden from Citi. I wondered if I could offer you the opportunity to clarify your dividend guidance in respect of sterling DPS. So is it conceivable that the dividend per share will fall in sterling terms in FY '17 as you transition to euro? The wording of the guidance suggests it could be. But, as that was an offer of clarification, I wondered if I could sneak in a question as well which would be you've said 24 of 26 markets are going to see EBITDA growth over the next few years. Rather than asking you to list the 24 markets, I wondered if you could tell us who the two are.

So on the first clarification point, we're guiding euro dividends. So we will be announcing euro dividends and it's our intention to grow euro dividends. So, of course, I can't predict impact of whether we vote in, out, Brexit, whatever in FX movements. There are certain things that are just not in Vittorio's control. So I would say that's the clarification on dividend. I would say on the 24 to 26, let's call them minor markets that you shouldn't worry about but we do.

It's Nick Delfas from Redburn. So it's a question on content. Nick just mentioned the increase in costs in Spain. You've obviously got some increased costs in Portugal. EE has access to content now in the UK via BT. Mediaset Premium getting together with TI as part of the Vivendi grouping. And we don't know what's going to happen in Germany. So what is the Vodafone content policy to offset these threats?

I think you've got a good example in Spain of what is our policy. And I think I have to say I keep reanalyzing but I haven't changed my mind on this one. If you look at Spain, in Spain everybody has the same content that we had before. We just pay twice as an industry. I was asked this morning by some newswires, will we be able to put everything back into the customers? I don't know. I have some doubts that 100% of an increase of this size can be put back to the customers. Once everybody has the same content, I think, more or less, we're all in the same space. So if we can we would like to avoid strong competition for content. But we also have to be minded that in the classic prisoner's dilemma if one gets it then you have to play. And that's why we played in Spain and we will play in any other market where it is required in order to have a competitive offer. Of course, it depends a lot on our position in convergence, in TV, in each market. But I can guarantee to you that in our main markets we will not accept to be at a disadvantage versus the main players.

Just a quick question on spectrum, when you highlighted the different trends between EBITDA and EBIT, you highlight that EBIT was impacted by €200 million increase roughly on spectrum charges amortization. We don't see spectrum in free cash flow. Now going forward you're going to have spectrums renewed in Italy, new spectrum to buy in India, potentially new auctions for 700 megahertz at some stage. So the question is that if you can give us a bit of an idea how amortization charges in your cash payment can evolve. This year you had almost €5 billion. It's random. It goes up and down versus recurrent. And I'm sure that it will consume cash. So the question is that if there is - so first, if you can guide in terms of which sort of charges both in the P&L and the cash we can see. And if there is at some stage the plan to cover your dividends after spectrum rather than before. Thanks.

Let me comment on the general spectrum thing and then, Nick, you take the financial and, Johan, maybe you can comment. In front of us we have Italy. We have India. India is two different things. There is one which is pretty unaffordable and one which is more needed. And then maybe South Africa, I think, is the other one that is a bit unclear when it comes and so on. It is less than what we had in the past. So, from a commitment point of view, we think it is less. The point which is very important is what Johan commented about. We start re-farming now we start having such a generous or at least a wide, spectrum portfolio that we can start to optimize. And technology progresses a lot. So the more you aggregate, the more you do use spectrum efficiently, the more growth can be accommodated within things. So, in general, for, let me say, the near future, the time of horizon that we're talking about here, we think it should be less than what it has been in the recent thing. And, of course, one of the goals that Johan has now is really to work hard on this because we spent money, we spent shareholders' money, to buy spectrum everywhere. Now we need to use it organically in a very efficient way. And this is the technical mission and this is the Company strategy. In financial terms, our amortization, I'm not capable of comment.

What I would say in terms of financials is over the last five years we've averaged about £2.3 billion over the last five years, given that heavy 4G acquisition across Europe and 3G and 4G in India. If we look at the three-year horizon coming out it will be lower because, essentially, Italy is a renewal of 900 MHz in FY '19; the 700 MHz is probably past that date. So 700 MHz in Europe is not in the next three-year envelope and we will be very rational in India. If you look at the pricing of the low-band spectrum, it looks a challenging business case. So we will definitely be rational on the Indian. So, of course, we don't guide specifically, because that would give away our auction strategy.

And then to add on finally as one comment, we have got around seven spectrum bands in the markets where we're. And, of those, it's typically four or five that are utilized today. So we still have two spectrum bands with quite high capacity not used for adding on capacity in certain areas. On top of that, when we move spectrum from 3G to 4G we get double the capacity, due to technology. So there are still some miles to go with what we have.

It's James Ratzer from New Street Research. Thank you very much indeed for all the cost guidance that you have given. A couple of your peers have actually gone one step further and given guidance on net total OpEx outlook. Do you think Vodafone could see a situation where your total OpEx base net actually declines? Or do you think some of the savings you've announced have to be reinvested in other growth initiatives?

James, one of the things I asked specifically to Tim when he came into the job and I said, look - we went to a conference in March together and I had a group of people saying, why don't we have guidance on this, guidance on this? What about guidance on that, etcetera? So I asked him to do a piece of analysis on how many bits of guidance are given by our competitors. And I came away with two conclusions of that. Number one, the more points of guidance they give, the more they miss. And secondly, the longer timeframe they go out, the more they have to do a reset at some point and start all over again. So, look, we try to do the guidance on the ones that we think are materially important and that's why we give EBITDA guidance. Clearly, there are a lot of variables between top line, what type of top-line growth we get, is it wholesale fixed, is it on footprint fixed, is it data monetization, determines the margin and the acceleration that we get. So I'm trying to break down the cost to say, here are the costs, here are the initiatives we're working. Depending on the profile of cost, we will be working the cost agenda hard. So I don't think I have anything more to add over the comment I gave before.

It's Andrew Beale from Arete Research. I guess I wanted to ask you about the new capital-intensity guidance in relation to the LTIP cumulative CapEx - accumulative free cash flow payment that you get. I guess the implication is that you think that you got a relatively rapid return on investment from the extra capital spend. And I wondered if you could put some context around where you think that return comes from. How much is from incremental revenue? How much is from better gross margin by having more network, particularly on the fixed side on NGN? How much is enabling more cost savings, for example on the IT estate? Can you just give us any sort of rough color on those sort of sources?

I put that chart up at the end because what I really wanted to emphasize was, if you take those sort of £16.3 billion midpoints, take off, let's call it, £4 billion for next year just to make the numbers easy, you've got £12 billion. £12 billion over two years, £6 billion. So you're seeing a rapid increase in free cash flow. So we wanted to demonstrate the confident - our plans are still tracking to what we said on both M&A, we're ahead and on the £1 billion incremental free cash flow. So on that basis, where we see the opportunity and Fit for Growth was about how can we drive a zero-based approach on the current cost base to then reinvest on further growth opportunities going forward. So I would say the large amount of the incremental CapEx was very much driven from incremental revenue opportunities that we see going forward. I would say the cost-efficiency program is being driven as hard and fast as it was before, with maybe the only exception being when Johan came in we sat down, we were talking about IT transformation and just the speed at which we could go at IT transformation and get that cost down.

It's David Wright from Bank of America Merrill Lynch, just a question on India. I think, Nick, you've alluded to the 700 MHz being pretty shockingly expensive, I guess, on the reserve prices. There's obviously the 2100 MHz which I think you guys could probably use very effectively. But what you've also got is a potential IPO which creates a currency, of course, in that business. Is there an opportunity, do you think, to acquire spectrum smartly through consolidation of the Indian market? Is that a round-and-about way of avoiding some of these operating costs?

It is possible. As you know, the rules now allow that. So it is possible and I have to say, there are a number of players who are probably not very long term committed to the country. So yes, that's a possibility.

And that's, let's call it, one of the primary drivers of getting the local listing there is to use the currency.

I wouldn't like to call anything a primary driver. We want to consider the IPO and I say consider because it's not decided yet, because it makes sense to have some local funding, local shareholders' capital who is more interested and more committed to India. There is capital in the world who wants invest in India and just in India and maybe not in other parts of the world. And it makes a lot of sense also, like in the Vodacom model, to have a more local broad base. Part of the reason is also, of course, the financial reason that we can use the local funding to support the business, but whether it's to support the spectrum or support the acquiring spectrum from others, we don't know it. It will depend on the opportunities but those opportunities we do consider, of course.

I think it has the secondary benefit, obviously, in the sum of the parts. I think there's quite a wider range on the view on India. And I think it would also help narrow that range in terms of what the true value is of the India business.

It's Gareth Jenkins from UBS. Just a quick question on IoT, you talk about taking leadership. I wonder if you could give us some sense of your M2M business and what targets you have for non-human revenue.

Nick, you want to take it? We have here Nick Jeffery, who's the Head of Enterprise and I appeal, of course, to him. So talking about the commercial side of it, we already talked about the net of one?

Yes. Non-human revenue's a new category on us, so we'll work on that one for sure, but it is - our IoT business is something we've grown up over the last six years. It's founded on a set of technologies which Johan and his team have built which are unique to Vodafone which give us the ability to have a single SIM that works on any network, anywhere in the world. And that platform, as you heard from Vittorio earlier on, is already deployed in 30 countries around the world. It's a rapidly growing business for us; as you saw, a 20% to 30% year-over-year growth. We see that continuing into the future. The main verticals for us are automotive, consumer electronics, smart metering, healthcare and, in some sense, some part of the world, agriculture. So it's important part of the business. It will continue to grow fast. And I'm not sure we can add much more than that.

Also we can add the other part of the business, we're also considering the consumer part of it. As you would imagine, it's more fragmented, depends a lot much more on market by market and product by product. But I would say that the original choice - it's one of the things that honestly we're very proud of, because the original choice of focusing on enterprise and having a proprietary platform, actually is very important. If I look at the rumored price at which the other platform has been transferred to Cisco for, we have much less created a bigger, better and more successful platform. So it's a strong, strong, strong basis for future growth. Narrowband IoT will come. My prediction is also that wideband IoT will come pretty quickly, but I think Vodafone will be among the first ones to launch it.

And I think there are some really interesting things with this technology that will drive a lot of new business opportunities. The cost point for the connectivity, the target is less than $5. The battery consumption will mean that it can be up to 10 years with an AA battery. And, as I said, the penetration levels, since it's a six times stronger signal, you get in houses everywhere and also increased rural coverage. So it opens up a completely new business opportunity. And also with the launch of e-SIM, where Vodafone is very early out in the market to support that, if you add those things together you have a lot of new business opportunities for companies to offer.

My guess is that you will hear about this for the next 10 years in these meetings, 15 years maybe.

Just a quick follow up, you're planning to roll off 3G at the end of 2021 because you're going to basically potentially lose the spectrum. So I just wanted to make sure that was the primary reason why you're rolling off that technology. And on a secondary point, your networks in the UK and Germany are behind where you were originally planning. Is that just down to timing? Or is there something to do with the fact that you're partnering with O2 in the UK which is becoming a little bit of a - it's making it difficult for you to roll out networks? Is there anything else that we should be aware of?

So first of all, the spectrum we have on 3G we use two frequencies; it's 2,100 MHz and 900 MHz. And what we're starting with in some markets is you take it in portions. So if you have 20 megahertz of 2,100 MHz, you take it in blocks of 5 MHz. So you do a gradual switch of the capacity from 3G to 4G. And we've started doing the 2100 MHz. When that is done, we have in most markets or so 10 megahertz of 900 MHz and that's the one we save to the last. That's where you do voice calls and we have some data traffic. And eventually you take 5 megahertz of that for 4G. And then, finally, you take that final piece away. So that's the strategy. The buildout, let's say, in UK and Germany was behind our original plans. We have had good progress anyway in the last timing. In the UK it's dependent on a multitude of factors. And we have roughly had the same speed both in the Telefonica part as in the Vodafone part.

I would say the Beacon side was a bit painful to start off with but I wouldn't say that now. I would say that it's running in line with the run rate. It was just a little bit slow to deploy. And, therefore, we've been running behind since the start.

Simon Weeden, on Italy and Enel in particular, I wondered what you could share with us in terms of your confidence about how this is going to work and if it's going to work. And also if there isn't an independence clause in the agreement which means that Enel's fiber to the electricity meter network can't, at some point, be taken over by TI, for example.

Sorry, I didn't get the second part of the question.

The second part was - the first part was--

What happens to the fiber of Enel if TI does what?

Could they buy it? Could they buy the fiber piece off Enel? Is that possible under the agreement that you have with--?

First of all, let me say, will it work? It does already work in Ireland. So this idea of putting fiber into electro ducts and on the poles is very obvious. You only need to go to certain Eastern European countries to see cable on poles. And, of course, it is not probably done in a completely coordinated way but, once you start thinking about it, it is the cheapest way to reach homes. The other thing is the electro ducts. Electro ducts are another type of duct and assuming they have the right amount of space and everything, it's also a cheap way of getting there. And finally, the third point is if you have to put a meter into a home, anyhow you have to go into the home. And so putting also the end of the fiber cable doesn't really cost much more in addition. So it is clearly a synergetic type of deployment. We're confident that this will happen. Enel is very committed. The initial commitment is good. There's a number of cities that are already in the plan and then there's a question mark about the C and D areas which actually would have also the support of government money. So the project is very solid. We're committed to it. We signed. I think Wind either has signed or are signing together. So this is becoming a clear alternative to Telecom Italia. Well, what happens, Telecom Italia can do a variety of things. They can join which is good because this will lower also our costs. So there are provisions which say that, depending on the number of people, both on the horizontal and on the vertical, the costs go down. They can try to buy, in which case we have a certain set of protections and clauses that would describe what happens if Enel decides to sell the fiber. So I'm pretty confident that that is a good project. Now Enel and Telecom Italia are both trying to buy Metroweb. From a competition, again, point of view, I believe that the dominant player buying the only alternative is a little bit dubious. But if it happens it will have colossal remedies. So, fine, we can live with it. And, in any case, we will still have access to Metroweb after that. So Italy, I think is going in the right direction and their reliance of - we had all these questions about the Fastweb, do you need to buy Fastweb and so on. Over time that question will fade away.

It's Nick Delfas from Redburn. So, just a quick question on European mobile service revenue growth. So it's minus 1.1% in the spreadsheet. Obviously, more people are going to SIM only and handset cycles are lengthening. I wonder if you've got a figure stripping that out. In other words, gross profit to Vodafone after you take account of the fact that people are repaying handsets less in the service revenue. So is the minus 1.1% in Europe already growth if you strip out the handset effect? Or is it still--?

That sounds like a really nice technical question that I want to do afterwards, so that I don't rush an answer. I'll handle it afterwards.

Okay, but broadly it's better than the minus 1.1%, obviously, if handset cycles are lengthening.

This is a Nick to Nick conversation.

I'll take it after.

So a follow-up question, it actually follows on a bit from Simon's question. I'm just interested in understanding the Enel agreement in Italy a little bit further. As a result of this agreement, have you now suspended your FTTC build in Italy and all the future emphasis is now on FTTH with Enel? Did you also design the network rollout with them? Because it's encouraging to see they're saying there's a 7.5 million build, of which 5.5 million actually don't overlap with your existing footprint. Is this something that is actually more economically attractive for you? Or is the attraction actually going to FTTH rather than FTTC?

So, as I said, we're consistent with our position. Clearly, FTTH is better and, therefore, everywhere we will have the opportunity to go FTTH, we will. It is also economically beneficial to us. So this is a win-win because Enel will get their money back earlier and we will give to our customer's better performance at better conditions for us. And this also, I have to say, proves my evergreen point that all these incumbents are overcharging for their services because, otherwise, things would not work. Now having said that, FTTC is still useful because, actually, we're doing pretty well in that area. We will, of course, design our future FTTC investment based on where Enel is going or is not going. So, of course, now the primacy is to supporting the Enel deployment rather than our own which also has implications on when we will migrate and so on because, of course, we will try to support the new partner as much as we can, but it's a good deal. And it's a fairly visionary thing for the country. And, as I say, it's interesting Italy and Ireland are doing it. We're now looking into other electricity companies. I have to say, though, the idea is interesting.

How do you get to the C and D areas? I missed that bit in your report.

The C and D are areas where the Government has found that there is not economic incentive to invest because they are market failure areas. And, therefore, they will put money to whoever bids in those areas. They could be won by Telecom Italia. It could be won by Enel.

So the intention here with you, Enel might be interested in bidding for those areas?

Again, we separated very clearly the first bar, the second bar and the third bar because the third bar is subject to auctions. So who knows who will win them but it's a further opportunity.

So my questions about the UK and Ofcom. So in February they said that they want to incentivize companies such as yourselves to invest heavily to give Britain alternative fiber networks. And, as part of that, they said they'll look at the Openreach prices because, in their words, they don't want to make it too easy for you to wholesale capacity when you have scope instead to be building your own network. So what do you think are the practical implications of that for you? And could you talk about your appetite to invest heavily to build Britain alternative fiber infrastructure?

I would say the first point is the important one. Openreach overcharges for what they do. I think it's proven that they had excessive profits over time. Excessive not in the sense that it were undue profits; excessive versus a certain expectation ex-ante. And, at the end of the day, regulators have to be very pragmatic. The more they allow one player to charge more the others, the more they take away the investment case from the others. So it's a fine balance between, a little bit like the Italian example, between putting pressure on the incumbent to come down with their own prices to create an incentive for others to go there and also create the conditions for the alternative. If they give us access to the DACS and they give us right of way at decent condition, of course, in certain areas of Britain it would make sense to consider an investment. But if we don't have access to the DACS and if we have to always be under a low level of service from Openreach, by definition the incentive will not be there. So I really look forward to this consultation and this process as a moment where we redefine the role of Openreach in the country, for the good of both investment and competition.

Sorry, maybe I can take it offline. But, essentially, if they reduce the prices that you pay Openreach, you have less of an incentive to build your own network.

This is a false argument and I really say ideologically false because if they reduce the price, we have an incentive to invest commercially. You create a bigger base. Once you have a bigger base, you have an incentive to invest. Look at other cases. So this argument that the incumbents put forward, they say, oh, we keep high prices because this will keep the market price high and give an incentive, is completely self-serving. They keep high price, everybody gives you money, you reinvest the money into BTE and nobody else will have any incentive to invest. So it's completely unproven, this point. The reality is that what incumbents don't like is a chart like this, where you see Vodafone is the top red line and they are below. So they don't like there is somebody creating this. Now part of this red line is also Turkey. Now in Turkey we're exactly able to invest in the business because we have decent margin to play with. If you don't have margin to play with, you stay out of the business. So it is a false line of reasoning - sorry false, it is self-serving. It's not false but it's not completely genuine, let me say.

It's a follow up on the Project Spring CapEx thing. The €800 million carryover into this year, the cash CapEx that has to be spent, will that still give some network advantage beyond what we saw at the end of March? Because I'm just looking at your Spring targets and you beat them all in AMAP but you didn't quite get there in Europe. Is that because there's a follow through--?

It's CapEx committed cash out because we have, let's say 120 days' payment terms. So physically we - sure, you can order, it can sit in a warehouse and then go out. So maybe there's a residual still to be deployed physically, yes.

So on those delivered base stations, are they actually in the ground today and yet to be cash paid for? Or is there some quality of service still coming through--?

There will be some because there'll be a degree of warehousing. Our warehouses are only so big.

So I will try to make quick. It's basically for Nick. It's on the cash. Through all this refinancing and the convertible issuance, now you sit on almost on £13.5 billion of cash, looking at the appendix to this presentation. I don't think that there is a lot of maturities or at least not that particular magnitude, coming your way. During your presentation you mentioned uncertainty macros and that's the reason why you want to carry a bit of cash. So if you can give a bit of granularity what you mean and what would be the use of cash you project going forward. And this is a clarification. This £800 million of working capital or CapEx already spent and has to be paid, because you basically used that to create areas in your free cash flow, if you can give us a bit of color what sort of working capital cash outflow we have to expect for next year that is basically impacting your free cash flow. And that is overall free cash flow, not just - overall working capital just coming from the CapEx that were mentioned in the previous question.

You were saying about - sorry the first bit, just say the first bit --?

The £13.5 billion cash was the cash balance you have at the moment in your balance sheet. What's the--?

The reason why cash is high - over the course of the past year, obviously, we were in earlier talks with Liberty that then closed while we were in talks. In terms of the bond market, though it was available to us, the pricing wasn't attractive. So once the talks finished, we were able to go back into the bond market. We chose quarter 4 as the opportune time to do it. I think we got some great rates. But what we had was a high level of CP and then at yearend, effectively, a whole bond issue came in on top. So we're sitting on CP. CP is less than one year of debt, so it matures off over FY '17, unless we wanted to keep it open. So, let's say, Brexit and if there was disturbance in the market, we're sitting in a very good position from a liquidity position. Once we're through uncertainty, you would expect the CP to drop down. There's no other uses of cash. It's just more, I would argue, timing and tactical. And, in terms of the working capital, what I was just drawing out is we've got an exceptional flow of working capital because the CapEx is at a very high level and we're bringing down CapEx in FY '17. So we will just get a normalizing effect once we're past the £0.8 billion. But just bear in mind, I'm not going to quote a working capital number for the Group because the Group at any given one day can have £500 million flow through. So there's a lot movement within working capital.

Very good. I thank you for your attention. I think key takeaways are good financial performance, I hope you agree with it, back to growth, good performance in fixed broadband, really accelerating enterprise and mobile data and growing guidance for next year; 3% to 6% in euro. With all the complexity we need to learn all the numbers again. Thank you very much for coming. Thank you.