By the way, our deal with MGM didn’t give us access to any online activities or revenue. So, no online sports betting. If iGaming came, we wouldn’t have participated in it. Only the bricks-and-mortar operation would we — we have any sort of like claim. And so that was yet another reason to go ahead and monetize. So yes, we would look at other stuff, but they are not — those opportunities don’t grow on trees.
Matt Swope: Got it. And then maybe just a last a quick one for Peter. With the Houston radio sale that’s in your divestiture trust to Spanish broadcasting, we saw that you extended the timeline on that. Is there any pressure on that deal? Does that have any other impact on anything else you are doing in Houston or any other issues?
Alfred C. Liggins: There is a finite amount of time that the trust is authorized by the FCC. But it was — they gave us a two-year window to get that done. So, the extension that we — so one station has already been sold and closed on — with EMF. And the time line that we extended for the second station for Spanish broadcasting, I think the schedule is for it to all be wrapped up by July or something like that. So, well within — it’s well within the first year. But there is a two-year window that we have with the trust, but we suspect that it will be closed out well in advance of that.
Matt Swope: And theoretically, you could extend it a little more if you wanted even?
Alfred C. Liggins: Yes, you could.
Operator: And next we can move to Kenta Shimojo with Wellington. Please go ahead.
Unidentified Analyst: Good morning and thanks for taking my questions. And not to rehash Matt’s question, but appreciate you are still digesting the Richmond outcome. I am just kind of curious if you have any thoughts as to timing for that fifth license or any kind of milestones or mile markers that investors should be looking for in terms of when that gets revisited.
Alfred C. Liggins: I mean, it is a process that’s going to probably play out in the General Assembly this year. Again, we’re nowhere in terms of whether or not we’re looking into it. We haven’t — we really just kind of came up, like I said, for air after. But I assume that something will happen in this session. I do know that there is a group of folks that want to propose, and I know that there’s a state senator that is going to propose a bill to put it somewhere in Northern Virginia, like Reston or Tyson’s. So you got the northern Virginia, there’s a north — there’s going to be a push for Northern Virginia. I’m hearing that the city of Petersburg is interested again and would like to try to get it there as they did last go around.
But we wanted a second vote in Richmond, and so we lobbied against that. So, I just don’t have — I don’t any information of what the state of play is, other than people are positioning themselves for this legislative session. And I don’t know what’s going to happen. But I suspect that you’ll see a direction one way or the other coming out of this legislative session.
Unidentified Analyst: And then just thinking about the adjacent investment opportunities or the prospective opportunities to invest further afield from radio and even gaming that you alluded to, do you have any additional constraints that you’d be putting on yourselves in terms of like, size or maybe a higher IRR threshold or leverage cap just given the sort of additional risk of moving further afield?
A – Alfred C. Liggins: We don’t think about that. I mean…
Peter D. Thompson: Like, you look at each deal on its merit, right?
A – Alfred C. Liggins: Yes. I mean, I can tell you that — I mean, we’re not a venture capital fund. We’re not sitting here making a bunch of early stage investments in startup companies that we think are going to be 10 baggers, right? We generally have kind of wanted to invest in things that we thought were going to deliver a cash return, EBITDA that we could ultimately bring it to the Company and count. I mean, because you could look at investment. I mean, lots of people in the investment business make money on companies that actually don’t make money and just increase in value because of whatever reason. We’ve never — because we come from cash flow generative businesses, we have a bias towards cash on cash returns.
And so, my sense is if you’re going to look for a much higher return than 20-plus-percent on something, you’re probably going into something that’s more speculative and newish and early stage. And that’s just not how our mindsets have worked in — around here because of the nature of the businesses that we’re already in.
Unidentified Analyst: Yes. Fair enough. Four bagger will do. So, last one for me. There were a few recent instances of asset sales in the broader industry where non-commercial operators came in, kind of picked up pops at pretty interesting multiples. I’m just kind of curious if you have any sticks that are non-core to you that might be seen as strategic to the few non-comms that are out there?
A – Alfred C. Liggins: Yes. I mean, I’ve gotten approached recently for one of our markets. I’ve actually gotten approached for a couple of our markets. The problem is — and we’ve said no. And one of the — we thought about it. And one of the problems is, does it weaken our position in that market versus something that we might want to do that’s going to get us a bigger return? Not mentioning the market, but in one of them it would make it weak — make us weaker against the competitor there. And ultimately, we think there’s an opportunity to buy the competitor and do really, really well. So, I don’t really want to take the pressure off that competitor, before they sell. And the money’s not enough. It’s not big enough to make a big — to make a huge dent.
It’s kind of like $7 million, $8 million or something like that. And we have cash flow already in that market. So, if we peel that asset off, it’s also going to degrade the cash flow in that market. Maybe run it to zero. So you got to lock that — even if you just use a 5 multiple for radio, which is probably low, if you lose $1 million of cash flow, and somebody gives you 8, like you’re netting $3 million, it’s not worth it. So I mean, if we needed the cash for something, then that’s a different story. But today, we don’t need the cash for it. So — but yes, we’ve gotten — we’ve got a couple of those inbounds. But nobody — we’ve got nothing that somebody wants to pay $20 million for.
Operator: Next, we can move to Marilyn Pereira [ph] with Bank of America.
Unidentified Analyst: Hi Alfred, Peter. Hope all is well. You’ve answered most of my questions, but just a quick follow up. There’s the 3.55 leverage that you mentioned. That’s for 3Q, is that correct?
Peter D. Thompson: Correct.
