No. I would say it is worth exactly the same to whomever buys it. I would guess you have some sort of payment arrangement with the land owner unless the towers have easements that have no payments required and that looks exactly like a tower lease payment on a P&L. Some buyers don't want to own the towers so you will maintain the ownership of those assets and lease to the purchaser for enough to make it worth your time and effort. If this is the case, I would make sure to align all terms to leasee to what is typically called the Primary Lease (ground Lease). That way if one goes up or is cancelled you can cancel the subordinate lease or adjust it or whatever. You should also have some clause about the leasee being responsible for tear down costs if they are sole tennant towers and a clause covering the subordination to the Primary. If you want an example I can send you one.
In short, a tower standing up with no customers on it is worth less than a tower laying on the ground. Deconstruction costs are significant in many cases. On Mon, Jan 6, 2020 at 9:08 AM CBB - Jay Fuller <par...@cyberbroadband.net> wrote: > > Lets say for easy math purposes you bill approximately 1.5 million > annually. > > I've heard 1.5 times annual revenue thrown around for a valuation > purpose. There is a lot more to this figure but it's a place to start. > > So, if your company billed 1.5 million, you'd say your valuation was > around $2.25 million. > > If you had 90 towers on your network - and you owned 60 of them (the > steel, not the land they're on) , would you consider your network > worth more than if you rented all 90? > > My take on this is yes, they could all be taken down and converted to > cash, so the fact we own towers vs. rent them makes our network > more valuable. > > What say you? > > Thanks. > > > -- > AF mailing list > AF@af.afmug.com > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com > -- Lewis Bergman 325-439-0533 Cell
-- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
