Good afternoon, and thank you so much for attending our Capital Markets Day today. Happy to see that almost everyone has a chair, so that's a good start. Cellnex has been, and continues to be, in our view, one of the most exciting projects developed in Europe in recent years. We have created a sector, we have seen a massive opportunity, and also we believe that we have demonstrated our ability to adapt to a changing environment. Today, our chairperson, Anne Bouverot, will provide you an update on our strength in governance, followed by opening remarks by our CEO, Marco Patuano, on our next chapter. Our Chief Strategy Officer, Vincent Cuvillier, will give you details on our strategic positioning. Our Chief Operating Officer, Simone Battiferri, will explain to you our levels of organic growth and efficiencies going forward.
Our CFO, Raimon Trias, will explain to you our enhanced disclosure, our financial strategy, and our capital allocation priorities. Then also we will be sharing with you something that you may have seen this morning: it's an updated medium-term guidance, and then we will be following with closing remarks by our CEO before we open a Q&A session. So thank you so much again. Without further ado, Anne, the floor is yours.
Good afternoon. Good afternoon, everyone. It is my pleasure to address you today in my capacity as Chairperson of the Board of Directors of Cellnex. I would like to start with a few words on why Cellnex matters. There's continued growing demand for connectivity in Europe, from consumers and from businesses, and the digitization of society and the economy is continuing to move ahead, with artificial intelligence already becoming the next growth driver. As a result, our customers, telecom operators, need to expand and densify their networks. And as Europe's leading neutral wireless telecoms infrastructure operator, Cellnex has a vital role to play in enabling this. By being neutral, we gain the trust of our customers, and by enabling collocation and being efficient, we can benefit our shareholders, our customers, and the environment.
Since our IPO in 2015, Cellnex has achieved significant growth through M&A, but now is the time to focus on operational efficiency and shareholder returns. This strategy and focus starts from the Board of Directors, and this is with the strategy and intent in mind that we have selected and appointed our new CEO, Marco Patuano. Back in June, we are very pleased with his work. I'm sure you are as well. And today you will hear from the team he has put in place, an experienced and energized management team under his leadership. Let me add a couple of things about governance, as you can see on the slide. First, we created a new Capital Allocation Committee at board level.
This is a committee whose role is to review and scrutinize management's proposals for capital allocation, exactly that, so that they can then be put forward for approval by the board. Now that Cellnex is on a path to generate significantly more cash, it's a very important role to have, and we will ensure we return significant amounts to you, our shareholders. Also, I want to highlight that management incentive plans, as put in place by the board, are very strongly and firmly aligned with shareholder value creation. The targets of the long-term incentive plans are based on meeting or exceeding cumulated free cash flow, total shareholder returns, and of course, ESG. With this, I'm very pleased to give the floor to Marco.
Thank you, Anne. Thank you to all of you for being here. It's a pleasure to see you, some of you to see you again. Some more white hairs, but still here. We are starting the phase two of this project, which is not a revolution of the project. It's just an evolution of the project. It's the normal phase two of a project, and it's an industrial chapter. One Cellnex. Why one Cellnex? Because we started in 2015. The history of the tower sector in Europe starts basically in 2015. Italy and Spain, in this moment, launched the first tower cos. Since 2015 to 2023, it has been a very impressive journey, growing fantastically in terms of industrial indicators, the assets, but also in terms of total shareholder return, a total shareholder return that, in any case, has been more than 15% a year.
What is Cellnex today before the beginning of the phase two? Well, it's a company of more than 1,100,000 towers. It's more than 10,000 nodes of active equipment, more than 110 edge data centers, more than 36,000 kilometers. And we prepared with 12 markets, I would say 11 markets, because, as you know, we signed the sale of Ireland, but let's say 12 markets until this morning. So what is all about this phase two? Well, working on team and organization, only a few months ago, many people were asking if missing some of the founders would have been catastrophic for Cellnex or not. Well, we are still here. We're still alive. The company is more than a single people. And you will see acting the new CSO, Vincent, the new Chief Operating Officer, Simone, a telecom engineer working with me since sort of 20 years.
The new CFO, Raimon, he's coming from the world of private equity, not necessarily from the world of telecommunication, but in a world where every penny counts. Then we have more other people. There is Daniel, the regulatory guy. There are some other people that were with us. But most importantly, not only technical expertise, not only industrial profile, but we changed also our organization. We moved up the CEOs of the countries. The life of the company, the life of an industrial company happens in the country. It doesn't happen in the headquarters. The headquarters is a sort of need that you have to pay for, but where is the life is in the country. So now the country CEOs are more empowered, and they are permanent members of the executive committee. We retuned the strategy. This is something that I will leave to Vincent to go through.
And we've been working on an excellent industrial approach. This is what Simone will tell you, very much in detail and very much with practical elements. So making an industrial change is not something theoretical. It's something very, very practical. So what is the next chapter? Well, one, very simple, operational value creation. We have to tell you and to explain to you how secure our growth is, both short-term and long-term. There is something that is very unique in Cellnex: the long-term growth. Second, we have to be more efficient. We had an efficiency plan, and we are moving on top of the efficiency plan. I remember a time ago when many of you were questioning our 2025 target. Is Cellnex going to be able to achieve the 2025 target? Well, if we don't do nothing, the answer you would have been right. The answer would have been no.
So now we are going to explain to you what we are going to do in order to be at the appointment in 2025 and to be more performing in 2027 with the margins upped from 59%-64%, and to increase our cash conversion. A part of the increase of the cash conversion comes from the reduction of our very important BTS program, as most of you know. But what we plan is to have a 2027 free cash flow generation, which is going to be 8x the one in 2023. Why this? Because we are working on shareholder value. So we are going to generate significant cash. This significant cash made organically and inorganically. This morning, we announced the sale of Ireland. I think that we all agree that price was very good, EUR 971 million.
It's a sort of 24 times 2024 EBITDA after lease, so quite a good price. But you will see that it's not only because of our need of cash, which would have been eventually something relatively short-term to solve. It's a matter of being consistent, being consistent with our message, and you will see in the coming moment. So we have to set a long-term leverage target. We set 5-6. Why 5-6? Because it's responding to two things. One, we need it to be permanently investment-grade, but we need some flexibility. In bad times, we can go to 5 to be more prudent. In good time, or if something very attractive comes, we can go to 6 time, but we want to stay investment-grade. This is extremely important.
We will make available more than EUR 10 billion cash resources by 2030, and we are going to allocate a minimum of EUR 3 billion in dividends between 2026 and 2030. I will elaborate in a second that between 2026 and 2030 does not mean that 2025 is excluded from some possible return to shareholder. We will devote the remaining EUR 7 billion to all the alternatives, possible alternatives, having a clear North Star, which is value creation. Buyback, well, today would be a no-brainer. Buyback at this share price would be the best way to invest our cash. The only pity is that we are not starting today afternoon because it would be a great allocation of our cash. Extraordinary dividends or industrial business opportunities. On industrial business opportunity, I take the word of our chairperson. We have a very disciplined approach.
This is the third point, a rigorous disciplined approach to capital allocation. So some time ago, with the interest rates close to zero, it was relatively easy to have a very simplified way to assess the capital allocation. IRR more than 10%. Good. Fantastic. So interest rate at zero, so 10% is a good number. Now, interest rates are not at zero, and we have to be a little bit more sophisticated. So the way we calculate or we allocate our money is we start from the WACC, which, of course, includes the risk-free rate. Then we add risk premium, which is a mix of country risk, some business risk, towers and active are not the same, country risk, France, Italy, Poland are not the same, and some safety margin.
So it's not the same to operate in the business where we have a lot of confidence or operating in a business where we're moving the first steps. So you have to be prudent because in one case, you know the story from the beginning to the end. In the other, you know the beginning, and you possibly have some doubts in the end. So the Capital Allocation Committee has been touched upon. Six members. I'm not a member. I present the. It's very much most of you are familiar with the investment committee of a private equity or an infra fund. It's the same. So we have someone who presents the project. That's me. And we have someone who judges the project, and then we submit it to the board of directors because ultimately, the final approval is from the board.
Then so we love to be a boring story, but with some surprises, okay? What does it mean? Predictable revenue, predictable growth, and resilient margins. Predictable revenues. We have more than EUR 110 billion of contractualized revenues and growth. This is something I leave to my colleague, in particular to Vincent, to elaborate upon. Very long contracts, more than 30 years contracts, which is something that makes us a little bit unique. If you look at, for example, our colleagues in other areas of the planet, they have not so long contracts. We have a proven ability to drive organic growth. So sometimes we tended to forget that organic growth in countries where we operate since many years, of course, is more advanced than organic growth in countries where we continue to invest.
If you compare Italy and France, in one, we are there since almost 10 years, and in the other, we are continuing to build. And a very diversified client base. This is something that, again, makes us a little bit unique, at least in Europe, because only less than 50% of our revenue comes from the first three clients, which is very good. Resilient margins, protection from inflation. Again, I leave to Vincent to elaborate. It's a big topic, and so Vincent will elaborate on this. Immune to energy volatility. You know that energy for us is a pass-through. That does not mean that it's not an area of investigation. We are making a lot of work on this. It's quite interesting. And a strong operating leverage. Simone will drive you through this. Why phase two? I started from this.
So the beginning of the story from 2015 to 2022 was, we can say, in Europe at least, the tower market infancy. So the tower market starts in the US in the late '90s and arrives in Europe only almost 20 years after. So in this period, we were again, I take what the chairperson will say. The data growth was starting at that time. In 2015, it was not like today for the data usage, but it was clear that the direction would have been the direction of more data. But there was a big availability of portfolio. MNOs were starting rotating their invested capital, and there was a fantastic low cost of capital and abundant capital, both on the debt and the equity capital market. So the growth has been mostly inorganic, more than 40 deals, more than 40 deals in only seven years.
At a certain point, something changes. It's normal. Something changes. What has changed? Well, everything. Now, data growth is still there. It's the only thing that is still there. Data growth is there. 5G investments are still there, but there are much less portfolio available, which, by the way, is the reason why we've been able to sell Ireland at such a price. There is a scarcity effect, a scarcity factor. If you wanted to buy a big and good portfolio of towers in Europe, there are not so many. So when we made the proposal, it's not surprising that two industrial bidders, two strategic investors, decided to tap the possibility. Higher cost of capital, higher inflation. And the last, MNO consolidation and network sharing. This is another point that I know that some analysts have been elaborating on, and it's important for you to listen from us directly.
And again, Vincent will elaborate. So I love simplicity. So life is complicated enough. So let's try to make it simple, okay? So our strategy is based on four basic pillars. One, simple. Make the strategy simple. Every time someone has a doubt what to do, he or she has to go for the simple part of the story. It's so easy. It makes life much easier. Focused. There are a lot of things to do, and we have to be focused. The broader the portfolio, the more difficult it is for the management team to be focused. So we have to be focused. Why? Because being efficient and industrially excellent does not come for free. It comes with a lot of work, with a lot of dedication, with a lot of sweat, and this is what we want to do.
And very last, I'm a bit maniac of this, responsible. We are leading the industry in terms of ESG. We want to continue to lead the industry. In order to make this, we're making a big change. We are moving the ESG from a consequence to a target. So normally, what you do, you make your strategic plan, and then you measure what are the consequences in terms of ESG. Now, we are putting ESG inside strategy, and ESG is a target itself. So we will have industrial targets, financial targets, and ESG targets. This is the only way to change the gear. So I'm making it too long. We have to work on our core values. We are neutral. We are independent. We are industrial. We are a big portfolio of 11 countries.
This is a point of strength because most of the time, we have the possibility to balance growth in France with stability in Switzerland. We can have a high new project in one country and solidity from other countries. We have a good team, but the most important, we are strongly rock-solid committed to achieving the investment grade by the S&P by the end of 2024. We can do much better. We can do much better than the end of 2024. We are reiterating the 2025 guidance. I think that targets for 2027 are not so trivial. I know that we are fine-tuning with some of you. There are elements that Juanjo will help you to navigate in. Then the big change. Now it's time to return value to shareholders. We asked you to be patient. We asked you to support our growth.
We asked you to support our investment strategy. Now is the time of the harvest. Now is the time to get in the result. So money is going to be there, and money is going to be mostly for the shareholder return. Having said that, Vincent, the floor is yours.
Thank you very much, Marco. Good afternoon to everyone. Pleasure to be here. So I will cover in my section who we are. Obviously, all of you know Cellnex, but we'll enter into more detail and where we want to go. We'll cover our growth story, our business model strengths, the opportunities and challenges ahead. We'll discuss in this section about the MNO consolidation, which is one of your questions. And then as part of this sphere, I'll cover because strategy is linked to execution, I'll cover the first two pillars, which are simple and responsible, and Simone will cover the two remaining ones. We are the pan-European network leader. Over the last 8 years, we multiply by 8 our operational magnitudes. We are present in 12 markets with 16 anchors, with more than 110,000 sites and 150,000 POPs.
But not only are we the pan-European network leader, we are the national champion in more than 80% of our market being number one or number two. Once we have said that, and this is linked also to our portfolio and asset rotation, when we are not leader, we want to become leader, which is the case of Nordics, where we have explained, and I'll explain again, when we want to partner because we see our market fragmented, and we see Cellnex that in the medium term can take more market share. These national champions, we do it through four business lines. Towers is our core and will remain our core with 80% of our revenue, EUR 3 billion being towers. This is the macro towers. But with the data growth consumption, you need to extend the network. You need to densify.
You need to go to extend the coverage, and this is our DAS, small cells, and RAN-as-a-Service with circa 6%. This is a natural extension of what we do. Then our towers with 5G need two additional things. It needs fiber, especially in the case of 5G Standalone, and it needs housing services to put some more equipment and the core being closer to the edge. And this is what we do on fiber connectivity and housing services with 4%. And then we have our legacy business, broadcast, both on TV and radio, which is a business we love, which is stable. The investment cycle has been done, and we'll remain in this business in the current perimeter. This four-business line, again with 80% focus on tower, are split in 12 countries. Our top five markets represent 80% of our revenue. This is our core.
In the sense of order, France, Italy, UK, Spain, and Poland. This is the first time that we will disclose and Raimon will explain our top five countries, and we'll have an improved operational disclosure in terms of financial. Let me highlight three things. First, DAS, small cells, and RAN. DAS and small cells, Simone will explain to you, we see growth. Yeah, we tend to see, you may think, this is small. Let's be clear. We are the European leader on DAS and small cells. As you can see, there are five markets where we are big. But over the last 2 years, we have built some presence in DAS and small cells in the remaining seven. What is our objective? Very simple. You see the small ticks, they will be big in 2027 in DAS and small cells. Second, RAN-as-a-Service. We truly believe in it.
Having said that, this is something that we made a bet, a secure bet. We will demonstrate to you with this improved disclosure that this works. Once this will work, then we'll expand in new geographies if we make the case. For now, it is in Poland, and it will remain in Poland. Finally, fiber and connectivity. We have three networks, two are nationwide networks, big ones, in France and in Poland, and then we have a regional network in Spain. Once I've explained what we do, let's deep dive in our business model strengths. Marco explained we have secure revenue growth. We have diversified client base. We have a very strong relationship with anchors. I want to spend time on that. We are real neutral operators, and we'll explain why. Then our business is about data growth. This is the underlying driver.
This has been done, and this will remain. I will cross some fingers because this is the long-term growth of this business. EUR 110 billion. This is a unique number. Yes, it's big, but it's very big compared to our peers. Our EUR 110 billion backlog is composed of our existing contract plus our contractualized build-to-suit. This is contracted. CPI, which is contracted, is not included in this EUR 110 billion. Look, we have been conservative. We don't know what will be the CPI, so we say we don't include it. This number will massively increase because of the CPI that will come to our contract. We'll spend some time afterwards. Two-thirds of our contract is linked to CPI, one-third is linked to fixed indexation. Long-term backlog visibility. Second, medium-term growth. 80% of the revenue growth you see in our guidance 2027 is already secured.
So yes, we need to work very hard for the remaining 20, and this is what Simone will explain. Our proven ability to achieve organic growth. The perimeter of Cellnex multiplying by eight, change of perimeter, build-to-suit, made it very complicated to you to follow our real organic co-location growth. Over the last six years, we have increased by more than 22% our co-location ratios. 22%. If you deep dive in the country where we enter first, so we had time to implement framework agreements with customers, these numbers reach 33%. So we have done it. Now, and Raimon will explain, in the way we'll report also this organic and co-location growth will be more easy for you to follow, but there is organic growth and has been organic growth and co-location at Cellnex. Second concept is our build-to-suit.
We have EUR 4.5 billion of contracted build-to-suit commitment with customers. This EUR 4.5 billion is composed of 80% to towers. Again, more than 80% for revenues towers, more than 80% of our growth in build-to-suit CapEx will be towers. The remaining 20% is fiber, RAN-as-a-Service mainly. This is a very healthy growth to come. Our implied ABD multiple of this build-to-suit is well lower than the trading multiple of Cellnex today. Second, we'll put upside on that. We'll put new co-location on that. When you have a new tower, this attracts a lot of interest from the remaining MNO in the country. And second, we'll put more efficiency in the towers. If we can buy the land, we'll do it. If we can renegotiate the land, we'll do it. And Simone, in his section, will also explain.
The key message of this line is, yes, we are diversified. We are diversified in developed markets. We are diversified in hard currency. We did not diversify taking more risk. This is the key message. 16 anchors in 12 markets, 48% of our revenue comes from our top three customers. These top three customers, they are not each customer in one single country. These top three customers are split in nine countries. So these numbers will be even lower if I will look at their national position and not look at them as a group. Compared to peers, we are diversified. As I said, 100% of our revenue base is in developed markets and hard currencies. Let's talk and spend some time about the relationship with anchors. This is where we spend more time. I came from the operation. This is what is about trust.
First concept, customers contract long-term to us. More than 30 years of backlog is the biggest number of the industry. Second, once a customer signs with Cellnex, they repeat with Cellnex. They expand their relationship. What drives us, what drives our decision in investment, is our relationship with the customers. There is a clear success case here, which is France, with three encores, and once they have signed, they repeat. But more even important, this is the proof of what is being neutral. Do you imagine our customers? They trust in us knowing that we work with their competitors. And if they do so, it's because they trust that we are neutral, which again is unique to Cellnex. And once we have done that, we'll extract value also by crossing portfolio, and Simone will spend time on that.
Not only do they commit, not only do they expand, they repeat. We have, last year, signed and announced the industrial agreement with Telefónica, which was one of the first deals that we did at Cellnex, at Inception, with a 10+10+10. On top of that, for more than 4,000 POPs, with some adjacencies because there were some FTTT in the agreement, which is something we are making grow. And again, because this is the vision that our towers to have value needs to be connected, and Simone will spend time on that. These lines are about the long-term growth of your model. We need two things: coverage and capacity. Coverage, Europe lags behind Asia and the U.S. Coverage, there is a coverage obligation on 5G. As you can see, for our top five markets, again, more than 80% of our revenue, we lag behind the rest of our market.
This will imply growth in the medium to long term. Second, data consumption. Marco explained the numbers are increasing. I see some reports people say, "Yeah, but the numbers tend to decrease in absolute terms." In nominal terms, we are talking that from 2024 to 2040, we will multiply almost by four. Some of you spent some time at the Mobile World Congress last week. There was only one word that our chairperson mentioned, which was artificial intelligence. 5G Standalone will be launched now in most of the country, which is not the case up to today. We have a new type of coverage with fixed wireless access, with very strong presence in Italy, for instance. All this will drive more and more consumption and require more and more infrastructure. I repeat, this is the long-term growth of the valuation of Cellnex. Let's discuss now two important trends.
One is mobile telco consolidation. We have seen in many reports different points of view, so we want to have everybody in the same picture. Second, inflation. What implies high or low mid-inflation to Cellnex? Marco mentioned this is one of the reasons why we shifted strategy. Clearly, the industry dynamics, there is margin pressure on MNO, there are 5G CapEx to do, they are in some countries ending their fixed rollout, in some others they need to do all their fiber deployment, and they have low return on capital. So this implies the moves. How do they move on the network? Either through consolidation, either through network sharing. We have seen the case in three of our top five: Orange, Bouygues Mobile, Three Vodafone in the UK, and Vodafone Fastweb in Italy. This has implications for us, obviously. This has positives and some challenges.
Positives because we are close to our anchors, we sit at the table and we negotiate. We understand what is the strategy, what is our strategy, and we try to find a deal. Second, based on this consolidation, there have been new entrants. We have one of the best examples with what happened in Italy with Iliad when we had a lot of organic growth putting our infrastructure available to them. And also because when they will combine, and I think a clear case is here in the U.K., they combine to have a better network, to have an improved network, and to target to a way more better network that we will benefit medium to long term. But these are challenges. These challenges, this is maybe what you think, there will be a turn on POP, there will be a reduced growth.
So, to that, we need to understand what our protection is. In these 40 deals that Marco mentioned, we have protected long-term MSA, average 10 or 30 years as we see. We have tech-agnostic or all-or-nothing clause. You know that. But we have also some RAN sharing protection, which is extremely important, and Simone will explain how we will disclose our POPs, our points of presence from now on because there will be more and more services with RAN sharing on our towers. But the MNOs, to do that, they need our agreement, or we have already pre-agreed with them in exchange of a step-up fee in our contract, which has some positive implications. And also, when we sit at the table, you know it perfectly, we are DCF companies. So if we have to trade slight short-term to medium to long term, we can do it.
And this is what we will do because we are proactive in the negotiation with MNOs. All in all, we have estimated in these three countries at most 1% of our revenue being at risk, and this taking place after 2027. Why? Because two things. You need first, it takes time for regulatory approvals. We have seen it and we'll see it. Second, in order to make efficiencies in the networks, it takes also a lot of time. This 1% at most does not take into account any opportunities that I just mentioned. One clear example, and we hope to come back to you very soon, is we are in advanced negotiation with Vodafone and VMO2 in the context of the renewal of the current MSA, which again is a strong signal, especially in the context of Vodafone Hutch potential merger. I discussed MNO consolidation, now let's discuss inflation.
Let me remind what is the inflation to Cellnex. Two-thirds, 65% of our contracts are indexed with inflation, in some cases with caps 2.25%-4%. One third is linked to fixed indexation between 1%-2%. What happens when there is high inflation, which has been the case over the last two years? When there is high inflation, there is a moment where we are capped. So we are capped on the revenue base and we need to fight to protect margin, things that we have done over the last years. Now we will have tailwind. Inflation is coming back to the 2.5%-3% range. This will be within our cap and we will benefit from margin expansion. This is why, and Simone will explain, we will have 500 basis points of improvement in our ABD margin.
The work we have done over the last two years, thanks to that, we will have tailwind from now on with reduced inflation. So Marco explained our shift on strategy under these four pillars. Let me tackle the first one, which is simple. You like simplicity. Simple for us, what has been from the day that Marco came and I took my position, has been to review our portfolio, to review countries, and to review business line. When you review, you do it on three bases. Is it strategic or not? Do we have scale or not? Is it potential growth or not? This is what we have been doing with three objectives. If there is growth, we need to maintain optionality to growth. If we are constrained on the balance sheet, we can do it with minority partners. First concept. Second concept, enhanced management focus.
Their business line, it's not because they are not good, it's because, as Marco mentioned, time is very valuable to all of us, and so we want to enhance management focus and remove complexity. Third is to improve balance sheet and rating. I think you announced, and we announced this morning something, and we will come back to that, which here is one key principle. There is a clear arbitrage between private and public valuation. So we want to take the benefit, also taking the benefits of the scarcity, and this is what we are starting to do. So we partner in the growing markets. As I said, and you saw it in one of my previous slides, in the Nordics, we think that we can grow. Market is fragmented, and we will do it with strong partners.
We did a very accurate evaluation, 24x EBITDA, and we will do it. Also, to reduce complexity, we put these two countries under a single umbrella with one single management to reduce complexity at Cellnex, also from an organizational standpoint. Second, we have announced Edzcom, which is our private networks, that was signed in the Q3, in the Q4, sorry, 2023, and that we have, or I announced, that we have closed last week with EUR 32 million cash in with Edzcom. Is the business bad? No, it's not bad, but it is putting a lot of complexity for a few cash flows to Cellnex. And third, asset rotation. We have done our analysis of portfolio. We have explained Ireland, and we will now focus on Austria in the coming weeks with the team.
This portfolio, as you can see on market, is also very clear in terms of business line. Towers, it's our core, will remain our core, and will be selective in opportunity to grow. DAS and small cells, Simone will spend some more time, we see growth. Again, I said, it looks small to Cellnex, but small already means being the most important player in this densification and want to grow significantly in the coming future. RAN services, I have already mentioned. Fiber and connectivity, FTTT, is a growing demand from our customers. We will do it and we will put ambitious targets in terms of new fibers connected to our towers. Fiber transmission, I mentioned, we have three countries, two with nationwide networks, Poland and France, and the growth will come from our French operation where we are connecting all the towers of our customers with fiber.
And last but not least, broadcast, that I have said, will drive efficiencies and will drive efficiency in the coming future. This is the simple. The responsible, I will spend slightly less time, not because it's not important, it's extremely important. Sustainability is part of the DNA of Cellnex for 2 reasons. Why? We want to share infrastructure. Our DNA is about sharing infrastructure. Our DNA, and you will explain, is about not to overbuild. 1. 2., we want to bridge the digital divide. What we are doing clearly is we are trying to expand everybody should have access to connectivity, but everybody should know how to access this connectivity, and this is what we do with our foundation. Last but not least, this is unique to Cellnex. We are present in 12 countries.
We are a diverse company with 55 nationalities and will keep improving that in the coming future. We are a leader. We are a leader in Towerco, but we want to be and remain a leader in the industry also, as you can see in the index. 5 key takeaways. You will think I am this 80/20 guy. This is simplicity. Let me remind. 80% of our revenue comes from towers and will remain from towers. 80% of our revenue is from the top 5 countries, our core. 80% of our markets were national champions, number 1 and number 2, and we want this number to grow. 80% of our business is resilient, is secured, as I explained with the backlog and what we have in the medium-term guidance.
Out of the four pillars, strategy and execution are linked, simplicity, which is a portfolio review, we have done and will keep doing, and responsibility, which again is part of our DNA and is embedded in our strategy. Thanks very much. I will pass the floor to Simone.
Good afternoon and thanks, Vincent. Well, so far we heard about the first two pillars of our strategy, so let me start to elaborate about the remaining two. So focused and efficient. Well, we will drive focused growth, mainly, of course, in the tower segment. It's already been told, but we are a tower company and we will continue to be a tower company. But at the same time, whenever the investment could be compliant with our expectation in terms of return on investment, also to invest in this small but fast-growing market. On the efficiency part, we will boost and improve the integration between our operations because we are spread throughout Europe, so we need a better integration, more at group level and sometimes also in intra-country level because in some countries we have more than one operation still active.
Well, we want to increase our productivity at the same time, but more important, all these efficiencies plans would not affect the quality of service we are providing to our customers, but on the opposite, our target is to improve the quality of service we are providing today. All this with the obvious target to boost our EBITDA margin and free cash flow. But before starting deep diving in the two pillars, I think that this introductory slide can help us to understand the overall scenario. The reality is that we are different in the different countries. Not completely different, we are slightly different, but we cannot say that the same plan can be applied as is in each of our countries. For example, this is a possible view of our market. We saw just some minutes ago in the Vincent presentation a different one.
This shows in the left part of the graph a quantitative representation of the countries depending on the level of construction we have at the moment. So in the upper part, you can see as an example, France. France is a place we are building more at the moment, and in the lower part you can find Spain. That is the opposite, so we are not building at all. Why? Because there are different needs in this country. There are countries where the construction of macro towers is healthy because the coverage is still not the best. There are other countries where the construction of a macro tower would result in overbuilding, and overbuilding is never a good strategy because it's a problem that if it is not a problem today, it will be tomorrow.
As a matter of fact, most of the growth in the upper part of the graph, so from the country where we are building macro towers with our BTS program, we will come from these programs. The lower part, we will come from a focus on organic growth that we already see we are able to exploit quite well. For the adjacencies, we are present in all the countries, but mainly in five of them. We want to pursue these opportunities in all the countries, always subject to our capital allocation rules. Efficiency is a general recipe, I should say. We will apply it to every country, but also in this case we have different interpretations, different approaches depending on country by country. Just to summarize this slide, we will set a specific plan for each country tailored to the country-specific situation.
So, get back to the four pillars and starting to talk about the focused growth. What are our drivers? Well, first of all, to prioritize co-location. Co-location is very creative because it's a low CapEx activity, but very interesting in terms of boost on revenues. We will extract the full value of our BTS program. The BTS programs are creative, as we saw before, and also extend our tower asset portfolio, so making us, well, producing a new greenfield where to apply our methodology to improve co-location, so organic growth. Then there is another interesting aspect that is half and a half between efficiency and sales and growth because a good way to be efficient is to sell well.
So due to the fact that the BTS program at the end needs sale activity, there are programs that are already agreed, but we are then transforming the construction one by one of our sites. We want to apply a smarter, whenever and wherever possible, a smarter way to build sites or not to build eventually. But we will elaborate in the next slide. Last but not least, adjacencies. We will invest in this small but fast-growing market. What is the impact of these drivers on the four business lines we saw before, just presented? Well, tower costs are focused, of course, on tower business. 80% of our tower business will still come from towers in 2027. What we see?
A growth that is between 5% and 6% average annually, a number of towers that is going to improve by 3% at the end of the period, and an average revenue per tower growing also at 3%, about 3%. This is a new KPI that I will introduce later, but we think it's a better way to represent this type of market in the future. For what about DAS, small cell, and RAN as a service, here we see a much higher growth, between 10% and 15%, and this will drive this business line to contribute to the overall revenues in end of period at about 10%. Then we will maintain our actual commitment in the fiber deployment in Nexloop, getting up to 33,000 kilometers of fiber in 2027. This is our commitment.
But we will introduce a bigger number of fiber-to-the-tower initiatives that, anyway, will represent a very limited revenue contribution because we are talking about 5% at 2027, but very strategic from our point of view. Last but not least, the broadcast business. Well, this is a stable business with different characteristics if compared to the other one. First of all, it's a business that is not growing. It's a stable one. Second, the technology behind this type of service is already very stable, again, so we do not foresee to invest in new equipment for this type of business. And interesting news comes from the renewal of the spectrum allocation from the Dubai conference that was just a few months ago. So until 2030, this business will be as it is, and probably this allocation will be also postponed for the next decade. So safe and stable business.
Let's start with the most important business line. How do we expect the growth in this area? Well, we expect growth about, or better said, more than 30,000 new POPs coming both from our BTS program, but also from organic growth. The contribution we expected is more or less 50/50, and we think that this is average the percentage we will maintain. At the same time, it's important to underline that our BTS use programs are going almost to end by the end of the period. So we will have 90% of the sites delivered in 2027 and only 10% remaining for the following years. At the same time, we have some interesting massive rollout, in particular what I'm sharing that you can see as an example in the upper right part of the slide, that we think that will continue in the next year.
That's why, going to this slide, we are evolving our way of metering some KPI, in particular POPs. Between 2022 and 2023, there was a big change. The run sharing started to grow much more than the past. Historically, we used to report the POPs with a weighted approach, in the sense that the non-MNO and run sharing were translated to an equivalent POP, basing our weight to the revenue contribution of the POP itself. This led us to a decreased number of POPs comparing to the physical one, but with a bias that was limited. If we see in 2022, it was about 5%. The reality is that run sharing is expected to grow much than the past, non-MNO POPs too, so we decided to abandon this equivalent POP metering and pass to the physical POPs in line of what our peers already do.
So the error would have been too much. 12% is a big difference in 2027 if we continue to follow the growth as planned. At the same time, we introduced a new KPI that is the average revenue per tower. You can see at the upper right part of the slide. And so giving an overview of what we expect for the next four years, including this one, is to go from 1.54 customer ratio, considering either physical POPs, so the new way of metering POPs, to 1.64, at the same time to increment our average revenue per tower by 3% in the same period, while increasing the number of towers of another 3%. So the combined effect of the average revenue per tower growth and number of tower growth will drive us to the result I supposed before.
It's important to underline another phenomenon, that our BTS program introduced new towers in our portfolio, but these towers enter our portfolio with a lower fee compared to the average one and typically with a lower customer ratio because they are monotenant, so customer ratio one. So this type of program introduced a dilution in these two KPIs that you can see represented graphically. Without this effect, of course, it would have been higher than what we show in this moment. Well, let's spend two minutes about what is the CTS concept. Well, when a customer has a BTS program with us, normally asks for the construction of a new site. So there are three possible scenarios. He asks for a site where there's no alternative, so we have to build a new site. That is the normal way. So that is more than 90% of the times.
But there are cases in which it can happen that two customers are asking the same site at the same time, same in the sense, very near sites, or that a customer asks us a site very near to one that we have already in our portfolio because, of course, our customers don't know our topology entirely. In this case, what we are negotiating with our customers, and we are already, well, advanced with some of them, is to reuse as much as possible our legacy infrastructure instead of building. I repeat, overbuilding is never a good idea. So if there's already infrastructure available, there's no reason to build.
This will translate in a benefit for our customers because it's a saving on their side, and it's a saving on our side because we would save 30% of CapEx, more or less, but more important, all the future OpEx related and, of course, lease related to a new site. So very, very interesting approach. We estimate, well, that there are between 5% and 7% of the new sites that can be built in this way, built or, well, I'll say managed in this way, better said. Well, told about the big chapter of the towers, let's start talking about adjacencies. What are the conditions? Three conditions. There should be activities that are complementary to our core business. So we are not doing strange things, something that is very near to our core. They must have growth potential. There must be fast-growing market. Otherwise, it's not interesting.
Third, they should be value accretive. Otherwise, we are not going to invest in strange adventures. We are going to follow exactly the same capital allocation rules already explained. Anyway, we expect this part, this business line, to grow much more because we are planning to get to 50% of revenue contribution from the actual 11%. So we expect interesting growth in the next years. Let's deep dive a little bit about DAS and small cell. What's happening is that the data traffic is increasing, but it's interesting the observation before. Artificial intelligence on the graphic part, it seems that our estimation of the analysts that will add 8% more traffic if compared with the old trends to the data consumption. So we need coverage and we need throughput.
There are two types of densification because the only way to do this is to densify, indoor and outdoor. But at the same time, the operator needs this service. In outdoor, for example, they are having every time, and we are having every time, more difficult to build the macro towers, especially in the center of cities or very dense urban areas. And there is availability of a high-band spectrum. So all this mix, I think, will help us to double our revenues in this sector by 2027 and to get between 25 and 35,000 nodes in the same period. Just another observation, it's changing also a little bit the market scenario. Once the only buyer of densification were the MNO, now it's not anymore like that because, for example, you see in the bottom right of the slide the example of a stadium, of a football stadium.
Venue owners, especially some type of venue owners, like big shopping malls and airports, stadiums, and so on, they need to provide to their customers an excellent service level. So it's not possible. And also for the agreements, for example, I don't know if you know, but in the stadium, if you want to do a music concert, you must provide a certain level of throughput and coverage. Otherwise, the organizer will not use that stadium. So there's a growing interest directly from the venue owners to invest and to buy the infrastructure. They can buy in two models. One that is called Asset Light, that sincerely is not the one that we prefer, but that the market is asking. They buy the infrastructure and then we design, manage it.
This is a valid investment because investment is done directly by the venue owners, so he can choose the return he wants to have. On the other side, we have the infrastructure traditional approach. We design, we buy, we invest, we build, and we manage with long-term contracts. Today, we are European leaders, and our target is to cement this leadership in the next years. Another interesting, well, flash, I think, about our Polish operation because we are in a very unique situation. We are, let's say, experimenting a new model that is a towerco driven network rationalization. So we are not managing only the passive infrastructure, but we are managing also the active infrastructure. So we can say, in other words, everything but spectrum, but core networks, and but network planning. And of course, nothing related to sales to final customers, but this is obvious.
So it's an interesting test case because it could be a way in which market consolidation could go in the future. We want to be ready if the case, but at the moment, we are in the learning phase. We are not planning to replicate this type of experience at the moment, nor in the next future, but it's very important to be ready eventually for mid-term. At the moment, this line, this RAN-as-a-Service business, weighs for only 2% of our general revenues. Just another flash about the Fiber-to-the-Tower business. The Fiber-to-the-Tower is a small initiative if we look at the numbers because we are talking about 5,000 towers. But it's very interesting from the strategic point of view because our customers need to connect their towers to provide excellent service to their customers.
But in the dense area, it's something that they are taking care of alone because there's wide availability of fiber optic. Where there are opportunities. Interesting opportunities are in the low-dense area, non-urban, without fiber present. We built a funnel to identify what is convenient for us, of course, in terms of return to pursue. And so non-urban, not far away from our fiber core, otherwise it would be too expensive, at least two tenants on the site. In that case, it's interesting for us. And we already identified about 5,000 possible connections to build in the next four years. Well, the first pillar, the focus at growth pillar, it's already ended. And we start now with the drivers of the efficiency plan that we are putting in place. What are the drivers? Well, optimize our operations. We are big. We are spread in Europe.
We come from a past of M&A, so adding new companies. There's room to improve. Increase our productivity, mainly through the introduction to standardization, industrialization on services, but also with specific tools and software platforms. We want to capitalize more on our economy of scale. That is more or less what we can do through the other drivers too. We want to unlock more value from our existing legacy assets. These are the levers that we are going to use. Least cost optimization. As you know, this is the biggest line in terms of cash out in our balance sheet. Tower rationalization. We want to use better our assets. Operation and maintenance, well, enhancement. There's room to improve here too. And last but not least, a consistent digital transformation plan that will help us to improve productivity and to be more effective.
Let's take you through all these points. Well, if you look at in the right side, we see what is the evolution of the inertial cost base on lease cost. What's happening? Well, we have most of our sites in a securitized way, but at the same time, there's CPI and there are net adds of new tenants because we are still building. So we are adding something like 15,000 new tenants in the near future. So inertially speaking, the lease cost will grow at a pace of 19%. Our target and our plan will impact this growth by -8%. Through the acceleration of the optimization of lease cost, this is a set of initiatives, so I will not deep dive, but it's a plan that was already in place, but we are pushing more and we think we can obtain more on this specific stream.
Next, a LandCo creation. We want to create a LandCo, a captive LandCo, to accelerate our acquisition of real estate assets, of lands. Site securitization. For us, it's really complicated to lose a site because it's zero value accretive. It generates much work and we generate a problem to our customers. So it's very important not to lose sites. So site securitization plan improved. I repeat, all these initiatives together will drive us to decrease by 8% the natural cost-based trend of the next four years. What is this LandCo? This LandCo comes from the carve-out of our real estate assets, initially in these four countries, so Italy, France, Spain, and Portugal. We are talking about 10,000 sites. These 10,000 sites will generate the biggest LandCo in Europe at the moment.
And I repeat, it will be a captive Land Co, so the only client will be Cellnex. And of course, we will respect all the agreements that we already have with our customers in terms of performance. The structure will be made to maximize value for the shareholders, very efficient, and to generate synergies and to allow tax benefits where possible. There's also the possibility, it's a strategic option, to let enter a minority stakeholder in this vehicle, but at the moment, nothing has ruled out about it. Let's go to tower rationalization. We have a big park. We are big. We have 110,000 towers, slightly more. And the reality is that they come from acquisitions. So we have something to fix, something to optimize, and both on our legacy footprint than on BTS.
We already talked about the BTS part in the sales part because I already told you we are 50/50 between efficiency and sales. But I repeat, on BTS to CTS, we identified an addressable target between 5%-7%. And we also estimated, after quite a deep analysis, we call ABC analysis of our sites, of our portfolio of sites, that we have between 2%-3% of sites that can be optimized. So in other words, dismissed because we have other assets many near or there are specific situations that will push us to close this site and to dismantle. Last lever, well, last. It's not the last lever because we have the digital transformation, but the last on operation and maintenance and on towers.
Here also, we would have quite a big increase in our base cost in the next four years, estimated by 23%, both coming from CPI and, again, net addition, net growth. What are we doing here? Well, first of all, most of the maintenance cost is outsourced. Maintenance activities are outsourced to other providers. We are revising all the agreements, all the contracts we have in place, and also all the processes we have in place, standardizing at a European level. Second, we are improving our access management systems. It seems a secondary aspect, but sincerely, it's the number one service that our customers ask us. And it's very hard in terms of resource consumption. So it's important to optimize. Here we are also using artificial intelligence, for example, to automate the process. Site construction. We are still building sites. We are constructing sites.
We are reviewing completely the building process and so the way we build new sites. This initiative will drive us to a decrease of 10%, so -10% in the cash out expense. So we're talking about CapEx and OpEx, both for operation and maintenance, comparing to the +23% that would come out on an inertial base. Another interesting KPI, all this initiative will permit us to decrease by 3% the average cost of the tower in 2027 if compared with the actual cost. So that's really my last slide. This is about the digital transformation plan. We strongly believe that an effective way to standardize, industrialize, is to use common platforms. So we developed Cellnex, the one Cellnex tech platforms, or tech stack, if you prefer, that is a comprehensive set of applications that are identical for all the group.
We are just rolling out in these months. We estimate to end the rollout by the end of 2025, but most of the rollout will be done in 2024, especially in the biggest countries. So with this operation, we don't only expect to standardize and to optimize, but also to generate a reliable set of big data to be able to apply a continuous improvement approach because with a reliable set of data, we could continue to improve our operation, also fine-tuning more than we did in the past. We are also starting to use artificial intelligence on this type of activity, especially at the moment, especially on contract management and other administrative aspects, but we want to use it also on the industrial part and, for example, in predictive maintenance. But to do that, we first need a bigger quantity of data, reliable data.
Well, so thank you, but before leaving, I want to leave you my five key messages. Well, we continue to focus on tower and we will deliver an annual average POP growth of about 5% divided half and a half from BDS and organic collocation. The revenue per tower is going to grow at about 3% and the customer ratio will arrive up to 1.64 at the end of the period. We are going to invest selectively in adjacencies and we will pass from 11%, actual 11%, to 15% of revenue contribution by 2027. Our efficiency plan will produce a decrease of -8% in lease cost and -10% in operation and maintenance cost versus the inertial cost base. All this will translate in an increase of 500 basis points in our EBITDA margin.
And said in another word, we will let us pass from 59%-64% EBITDA margin in the period. So thank you and I'll leave the floor to Raimon.
You have yours. Okay, I can take it.
Good afternoon, everyone. I'm going to be covering the next two sections of the presentation. The first one is going to be about our enhanced reporting. We are not changing the reporting. It's the same reporting. It's the same numbers. We are just going to give you a bit more of granularity. We've been listening to you. You were asking us that you would like to compare better to our peers and to do so, you will see that we are drilling down so that you can better understand our business and model it better.
The second part of the presentation is going to be about capital structure and capital allocation and how, based on that, we plan to maximize shareholder returns. So let's just start. As I said, what we are going to talk now, it's not changing any of the numbers that we have reported to you until now. It's just showing them a bit different or a bit more with granularity. We are going to talk about four topics: revenues, OpEx, Adjusted EBITDA and adjusted EBITDA, and we are going to talk as well about CapEx. Let's just start by revenues. Within the revenues, Vincent has been explaining to you before that we are going to read the business a bit different. We are going to talk about four business lines rather than three business lines.
So before, we used to have TIS, we used to have broadcast and other network services, and we are moving that into towers, DAS, small cells and run-as-a-service, fiber, connectivity, and housing services, and then broadcasting. Towers represent more than 80% of the total sales as of now. Also, we are going to break down five big countries rather than three as we used to have before. So we are going to have Italy, France, Spain, the U.K., and Poland, and you will still receive, as always, the rest of Europe in terms of information. Again, those five countries, they represent 80%, a bit more than 80% of the total sales of the group. There's another change that we're going to do because our peers report that way that is excluding from the revenues everything that is considered pass-through.
So we have some of our cost, basically utilities, and in the U.K., we have the business rates that we pass through directly to our customers without any type of margin. So what we are going to do is put that together into the P&L and report a net pass-through, and then that will reduce a little bit the revenues because of that concept. That's on the revenue side. If we look at OpEx, the only change that we're going to do in OpEx is basically take out the utilities. We are going to take out as well the business rates, and we will move that into the pass-through, and we will just create one line below the payment of leases. Today, you have adjusted EBITDA, lease payments. We are going to add adjusted EBITDA, EBITDA after leases so that you have all the information in the report.
In terms of adjusted EBITDA and Adjusted EBITDA, the only change is that we're going to give it to you for the five big countries, not the three. And then on the CapEx, I'm going to go in detail later on, but the idea and what I have been getting from yourselves and also our IR team is that it's difficult to understand how our expansion CapEx translates into growth of revenues. So what we are going to try to do is break down this expansion CapEx so that you understand how we look at it, how to allocate it to towers, how to allocate it to other services, or to efficiencies. So let's go one by one in detail. So the year 2023, we have closed with EUR 4 billion of revenues.
This EUR 4 billion is a 15% increase versus the year before if we take out the pass-through. So you can see that from the EUR 4 billion, we go down to EUR 3.6 billion, EUR 3.7 billion. That difference is the revenues linked to the pass-through. And you can see that then we break down this information by the four segments that Vincent has explained to you before. So 83% is towers. We have 6% being DAS, small cells, and run-as-a-service. We have 4% that is the fiber and connectivity and 7% that is the broadcast. The same with the countries. The five top countries, they do represent this 81% of our total revenues.
One thing that is important and that, again, we know that our peers are doing it because we want to get the best information to you as possible, we are going to break down our growth in different types of items of growth. So first, we are going to talk about CPI and escalators. When we talk about our revenues, part of that is contracted, and that's the CPI and the escalators. We will then give you part of the growth linked to co-location. That's co-location of towers, but at the same time, it's the organic growth of the other three segments that we have. We will give you the build-to-suit growth. You've seen before from Vincent that 80% of the build-to-suit is also towers, so you will be able to understand that as well. And finally, the change of perimeter.
As I said at the beginning, 15% growth in the year 2023, 9% of this 15% is linked to organic growth between CPI, escalators, co-location, and build-to-suit. So it's very important that the business is growing basically because of organic growth. On the cost side, as I said, minor changes. If you look at the different lines, the only thing we are doing, we take the utilities, we put it below as pass-through cost. From the general and admin expenses, we take out the business rates from the UK, EUR 33 million. We put it down in the pass-through cost, and we bring down as well the pass-through revenues so that we just create that group, and you will have the net pass-through, in this case, -EUR 4 million.
We are adding as well the line of Adjusted EBITDA, EBITDA after leases, and those are the only changes in terms of OPEX. Then if we move into the CapEx. Within the CapEx, what we have is, within the expansion, two types of investments. We have investments that generate growth of revenues, that because of the growth in revenues generates growth in EBITDA, and because of the growth in EBITDA, we generate growth in recurring levered free cash flow. We have another type that does not generate growth in revenues. It generates savings, efficiencies in leases, efficiencies in energy, and other efficiencies. So this one reduces our cost, improves our EBITDA, and improves our recurring levered free cash flow. So the first of the two, we split it into. You have tower expansion CapEx, other business expansion CapEx.
So the tower expansion CapEx is the one that will explain to you the growth on the new category called towers, and basically, it relates to either new co-locations that we do with customers, increase of customer ratio, or still investments linked to our existing contracts to grow co-location with existing customers. The second one, other expansion CapEx business lines, it's linked to the other three. You have fiber connectivity, DAS, small cells, RAN-as-a-Service, and broadcasting. This last one is very minor, so almost nothing. Then we have the efficiency CapEx. Efficiency CapEx, as I said, it's more focused on savings. Here, what we have is investments that we do to reduce the total lease payments, investments that we do in digitalization as well.
Thanks to digitalization, we are able to save certain costs, and then we have as well other investments for energy savings and other types of savings. Again, what you can see is that the number is exactly the same as we were reporting before, no changes in numbers. Up to this point, we closed the section one. Just to highlight again, we are not changing anything in the reporting, just granting further information, further details so that you can understand better the way we are running our business and the way we model our business. In the coming days or weeks, you can contact Juanjo and the IR department in order to get more information on how things have moved from one line to another, and you can understand better the flows. Now we enter into capital structure and allocation.
Up to this point, you've listened to Vincent talking about the strategy. You have listened as well to Simone talking about the execution of the strategy. And what we are going to see is how those two things together help us grow the EBITDA of the company, helps us accelerate the cash generation of the company, and based on that, how we are deleveraging, setting a new target leverage, and based on the target leverage, what is the capital allocation that we are going to be able to do to maximize shareholder returns. So as I said, and I'm going to repeat this probably many times, our first priority is to maximize shareholder returns in this new chapter. We have defined new financing policies. These new financing policies are going to be sustained within three pillars.
The first one is to be investment grade by 2024 with the two agencies and basically now with the Standard and Poor's. Once we achieve that, we have a mid-term target in terms of leverage that we are going to define, and Marco has explained before, it's 5-6 that we plan to achieve by 2025, 2026, no later than 2026. Once the new long-term leverage is defined, we will explain to you what cash generation we are going to be having and how we are going to be allocating this capital. There is a new capital allocation committee in the company. Marco has explained in detail before. Based on that, we have defined a minimum dividend. We have defined share buybacks policy and also an industrial growth opportunities approach for the upcoming years. Let's go one by one.
As we said, our first priority is to become investment grade with S&P in the year 2024. Not only that, but to continue being investment grade after with the two agencies. To become investment grade, we need to deliver the business, and we are on track in order to deliver the business as we were planning. In the year 2023, we have achieved for the first time in the last six years positive free cash flow, EUR 150 million free cash flow. Also, we are on track on our asset rotation program. As you know, last year, we divested a minority stake in the Nordics. We also received part of the remedies from France, and this year, we have received already EUR 150 million and expect to receive another EUR 200 million for France, a bit more than EUR 200 million.
We closed as well the transaction of Edzcom, and we have signed the divestment of our Irish operations. By becoming investment grade, we are going to get access and consistent access to the debt capital markets, and we will be able to achieve lower spread credits. Why do we need that? Because, as you will see in a second, we still have some refinancings to be done, and we need to be able to access those markets in order to refinance at the lowest cost possible. So year 2023, we have managed positive cash flow. This is going to accelerate in the upcoming years, and such acceleration is going to be boosted basically by the improvement in EBITDA growth, but also because we are finalizing the contracted build-to-suit. As you know, we have EUR 4.5 billion of contracted build-to-suit.
Most of it, it's going to happen, and it's going to be invested in the years 2024 to 2026. You can see that there is a decline on such investments, and by the year 2027, it's going to be already significantly low, getting to a 0 by the year 2030. If you look at the free cash flow, the free cash flow, it will be increasing over the coming years, achieving EUR 1.1 billion-EUR 1.3 billion free cash flow by the year 2027. This is 8 times the free cash flow that we had had in the year 2023. This improvement of free cash flow, as I said, is both EBITDA generation, but at the same time, lower investment in build-to-suit. When we look at how the business can deleverage, if you look at the year 2022 to 2023, we have deleveraged 0.8 times our debt.
This deleveraging has been both organically because of the free cash flow, but as well because of our asset rotation program, basically the Nordics transaction and the remedies from France. In the year 2023 to 2024, we are going to still accelerate our deleveraging to become investment grade, and we are going to do it again based on free cash flow positive, but at the same time, continuing with the asset rotation program that we had in place. We have just closed the sale of Ireland, and we are still analyzing other divestments. Once this is finished, the group is able to still deleverage 0.5 half turnover EBITDA on an annual basis, considering that we are paying the minimum dividend of EUR 500 million. So when you look at our deleveraging capacity, you look at us as investment grade.
It makes us feel extremely comfortable regarding our debt maturities of the upcoming years. We have a debt profile that is well designed both in terms of maturities, but also in terms of cost. The debt maturities of 2024 have already been paid. They were paid with the proceeds of the Nordics divestment, and we are looking at, during this year, repaying the 2025 maturities as well as far as the asset rotation program keeps on going in place. Even after paying the 2024 maturities, we have finished, or after that, we still have EUR 3 billion of cash available, what makes us extremely comfortable from a liquidity ratio perspective. Our average life of debt is above five years at this moment in time. When we look at the cost of our debt, today, we are at 2.3% in terms of cost.
What we are expecting, and because the prudent approach the company has had that 76% of this debt is on a fixed rate basis, is that until the year 2027, our cost of debt, considering the dividends, considering the refinancings that we will need to undertake, will not be above 2.6%. So now that we have clear how we can deliver the business, now that we have clear what's our debt profile, that it's an attractive debt profile with good maturities, we can then enter into see what's the optimum capital structure that we believe the business should be having. So we have defined 5-6 times levered for the company in terms of leverage ratio to be achieved by 2025-2026. How do we get to this number? First, as Vincent was explaining at the beginning, we have EUR 110 billion of revenues that are already contracted.
This means that we have revenues contracted, EBITDA contracted, and free cash flow that is already contracted. This gives us a lot of visibility to make sure what are the payments that we can do in the coming years and what are the debts that we can have and what's the maximum debt that we could be having for that period. Second, our rating agencies state us as an excellent business profile. Why? First, because long-term contracts with all or nothing renewal closes, because we are resilient in terms of inflation, we are resilient in terms of energy that we are able to pass through, because we are present in more than 12, now 11 countries in Europe, we have a good diversification of customers as well, good debt profile, many, many more things that you all know extremely well.
Based on those two factors, we define this 5-6 that at the same time is giving us the flexibility to move 5-6 depending on market conditions. If we see that market conditions are getting tougher, we can go down to 5, and if we see that they are weakening a bit and it's easier, we can go up to 6 to look for some further opportunities. With that, there is one thing that is important. We are going to be generating organic growth. We are going to be generating more EBITDA, more free cash flow, but as well, we are setting up a leverage target that it's 5-6. With our capacity to deliver, it will allow us to generate much more cash by keeping this range 5-6.
So as you can see in the graph, it's the same graph as we have seen before. Before, it was only showing the free cash flow, but now what we have here as well is what is the gap in green of the cash that we can generate by re-leveraging the business between 5 and 6. Having this available cash gives us flexibility for the capital allocation framework that we have explained before or Marco has explained before. So we are going to be talking about a minimum dividend that will be growing since the year 2026. We are going to talk about share buybacks and extraordinary dividends in order to enhance shareholder remuneration, and we are going to be talking as well now about industrial growth opportunities.
So if we go first with the dividends, as we said, we have defined a new dividend approach that will mean EUR 500 million to be paid from the year 2026, being the year 2026 the first year that it gets paid with a 7.5% growing. We, as a company, are working and are working hard in order to achieve our target leverage as soon as possible, and if that was the case, we will try to see if we can accelerate shareholder remuneration before that moment in time, but our commitment is for 2026. Last and extremely important: EUR 10 billion. EUR 10 billion is the cash that we are going to generate from today till the end of 2030.
Out of these EUR 10 billion, we are going to dedicate EUR 3 billion to our minimum dividend, EUR 500 million starting in 2026, growing 7.5% per annum, and still we are going to have EUR 7 billion that we need to allocate on the upcoming years. We are going to be looking at share buybacks. Clearly, as we were saying, at today's prices, it would be the best opportunity that we would have, but at the moment that we will do it, we'll see if it's accretive or not for our shareholders. Why do we look at share buybacks? It's tax efficient for our shareholders. It improves all our metrics, but at the same time, today, the AGM has already delegated into our board the capacity to buy up to 10% of our share capital. We are going to be looking as well at industrial growth opportunities.
As Marco explained, we have a new capital allocation committee that will take a disciplined approach, and we will look at opportunities that bring an equity IRR, minimum equity IRR, with a specific business risk profile and country risk profile. If share buybacks are not an option, if we don't find extremely good industrial opportunities, we will be remunerating our shareholders via extraordinary dividends. So just to close five takeaways. First, we are improving our financial reporting. As we said, we are not changing it. We are just giving more information so you can understand better, like we do, the way we read the business, and you can model better the business and compare us better to the different peers. Second, we have a commitment to reach investment grade in the year 2024 with the Standard & Poor's, and to continue being investment grade with both agencies going forward.
Third, we have set up a target leverage 5-6 times that will give us the flexibility... That will give us, sorry, the flexibility to move between this range depending on market conditions. Fourth, we are setting up a minimum dividend: EUR 500 million payable from 2026. If possible, we will accelerate shareholder remuneration, but we are committing to 2026 and will be growing 7.5% per annum. And last, on top of these EUR 3 billion that we are going to dedicate to dividends, we will have EUR 7 billion that we need to allocate in terms of cash, and that through a capital allocation committee, we will define how to allocate between share buybacks, extraordinary dividends, or industrial growth opportunities.
Thank you so much for your time, and I pass the floor to Juanjo that will tell us about the guidelines. Thank you so much, Raimon.
Now the section you were all waiting for: guidance. This is our short-term financial outlook. So essentially, what we are doing here is to provide the figures that we reported last week, our 2023 financials. So in our view, in line with expectations, we are meeting our financial outlook. And maybe just to highlight that we are generating positive free cash flow one year of EUR 150 million, one year ahead of our initial expectations when we define this metric. So very pleased with our performance. Now, we are also providing 2024 guidance. In our view, this is simply a bridge between 2023 and 2025, which is the guidance that you already know, which we are reiterating. Maybe the only thing that we are doing is to narrow the ranges that we get closer to that year.
Despite the headwinds, we know that we are living now in a higher interest rate environment. Also, we need to manage higher interest expenses. But despite that, thanks to all the different measures that Simone has been explaining, we are in a position to still reiterate our 2025 recurring levered free cash flow guidance. In terms of recurring levered free cash flow, the short-term continues to be intense in terms of build-to-suit CapEx. So this narrow range where it's essentially reflecting is EUR 1.1 billion of build-to-suit CapEx. So this is our commitment for 2025. Then if we move to the medium-term financial outlook, we are providing here the comparison between 2023, which again are the figures that we reported last week compared to 2027. Just one clarification: these figures include our current perimeter.
So all of the years that we are providing 2023, 2024, 2025, 2027, this is based on the perimeter that we have today. We believe that this is for comparability purposes. This should be comparable with your own estimates. And also, to be honest, because until recently, we didn't know if we were going to be in a position to announce the IRIS/DIRIS-T. So the moment that the transaction is closed, we will adjust these ranges accordingly. So moving to revenues, this is essentially reflecting all of the business drivers that we have been explaining during the presentation. So tower business revenues, these are going to increase 5%-6% CAGR until 2027. So essentially, that is what it's reflecting. It's an average revenue per tower growing at around 3% and also our number of sites also growing at 3%.
Then connectivity services, that is set to increase until 2027, 10%-15%. So that is going to be reflecting mostly the contribution from our fiber project in France with Iliad, but also the new projects that we believe we are in a position to deploy with our expansion CapEx. Also, the active services are similar growth, so around 10%-15%. That is going to be, again, reflecting the contribution from Poland because you know that we are already providing that service in Poland, but also we will be investing in DAS and small cells businesses, and broadcasting is going to be stable. So taking everything into consideration, we are expecting our revenues to increase around 6% CAGR until 2027. In terms of OpEx and lease management, I won't repeat what we have already stated.
So thanks to a very efficient management of our OpEx and our leases, we will be in a position to provide this adjusted EBITDA and EBITDA after leases of 7% and 8% growth, respectively. Then our recurring levered free cash flow, we are expecting that to increase 9%. Also, I think that here, one small clarification: you should be considering that in 2027, we are expecting our cash taxes over revenues to slightly increase over time. Historically, we are extremely happy with the way we have been managing this cash item. So historically, it has been performing at around 3%. We are starting to see a slight increase, so we are contemplating 4% over revenues until 2027. Financial expenses, clearly, the new macro environment needs to be reflected into this line.
Also bear in mind that we are starting to pay dividends from 2026 onwards, so that additional financial effort needs to be considered in our balance sheet. Our financial expenses also consider that dividend payment. Although our recurring levered free cash flow definition already includes payment of dividends to minorities, essentially in the past, that has been zero. As we start paying dividends, that also needs to be reflected in this cash out. What we are expecting in terms of dividends to minorities in 2027 is around EUR 50 million, and that is also included in this guidance. In terms of free cash flow, you can see that the range that we are providing, the midpoint of that range, contemplates an eight-times increase compared to the figure that we reported last year. You can see here that in 2027, our ILTUSUD CAPEX needs to dramatically decrease.
Actually, the figure that we are expecting here, that we are including in our assumption, is around EUR 400 million of ILTUSUD CAPEX. So that means that as our ILTUSUD CAPEX decreases, our free cash flow generation dramatically increases. And with this, Marco, if you want to provide your closing remarks. Yes, thank you. Well, I'm very happy you survived. So I thought I could see people sleeping or totally desperate. So at least you understand that my life is difficult with these guys. But our industry is not fashion business. It's towers, so it's not the most fun in the planet. And next life, I have to try to do something different in the next life. Anyway, well, guys, we have a team. So I tried to leave to the team as much space as possible because many of you have more opportunity to interact directly with me.
You know me, but you have less opportunity to interact with the team, and this is not a one-man show. Good changes are never a one-man show, are a team show. We have a great team. We have different characteristics. We have the engineer, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom. We have the guy who is a bit more animated. We have different nationalities, a bunch of Italians, some French. Nobody's perfect, don't worry. We have also one Hungarian. So we are increasing our diversity, at least in terms of nationalities. Yes, we are still a bit underrepresented in terms of gender diversity. This is something we should work on. STEM is not really the easiest place to get an equal gender representation, but with Yolanda, we are working on it, and we have it as one of the possible targets.
So we have a strong governance, the chairperson told us. Let's be honest, we passed through a moment that has not been simple. Last year, the change in the governance team has been a bit more complicated than what it could have been. But it's behind us. The board of directors is solid, is all with the team. We have an incredible set of competencies in our board, and this is really a parterre terroir, as our French guys nicely say. Growth and operational excellence. We told you infinite times. We are not an M&A factory. We are not an M&A firm. We are an industrial player. Growth cannot come always because you buy something. Growth comes because you do something. The same is for the efficiency. The efficiency comes from a lot of tiny adjustments that you do to the machine.
The 80/20 men, Vincent told us, "I love this 80/20 because it makes it very clear what are the priorities. 80% from the towers. Come on, let's focus there." So focused. This focus wanted to bring us to a solid 6% CAGR. Where is the 6% coming from? Let's make a big rough number: 2% CPI, 2% co-location, and 2% BTS. Come on. It's not exactly like this, but it's not that wrong. So what happens if the 2% BTS fades out? 2% CPI, 2% organic growth. This is what is our ambition long-term. Why? Because we want to continue to deliver on the drivers of our industry: more data usage, more density, more different networks, more activities. Efficient. We need to be more efficient. Some of our peers are more efficient than us. That's simple. So it is what it is. So we have to improve.
But improving comes from a lot of the engineering work. And so Simone, the engineer, would drive us in this direction. And responsible, I said many times. Responsibility is not just greenwashing. We will never do greenwashing. You can believe in us. Once investment grade is achieved and we think we can do it, the long-term capital structure should be between 5-6, net debt to EBITDA. And this will allow us to have more resources to allocate to the shareholder remuneration and the improvement of the TSR. So this brings us to something that is unusual for Cellnex, which is not spending money but returning money. So time to time, it happens that it changes. We will have EUR 10 billion coming from 2026 before 2030.
We say, "Okay, let's set minimum dividend targets." The minimum dividend targets start from 2026 and increase 7.5% a year, which does not mean that it's ruled out something in 2025. We just need if we do everything that we have in the plan, and you're better than me in making numbers, you will see that there are resources also coming before. But maybe that the best use of these resources is not necessarily a dividend. Maybe that it's something different than a dividend. Maybe it's a share buyback. Maybe it's something different. But in any case, we committed to EUR 500 million minimum dividend from 2026 onwards, and EUR 7 billion we are going to be allocated between buybacks, extraordinary dividends, or industrial investment if enhancing the value for shareholder. Our governance strongly guarantees a disciplined capital allocation. And 2027 guidance, recurring levered free cash flow EUR 650 million above 2023.
And this is what separates us from the presentation to the Q&As. So I leave. The moderator is going to be Juanjo. Juanjo, you are the boss now, and we will try to answer all the curiosities coming from the floor.
Thank you very much. Thank you so much, Marco. And now if you have a question, please. What I would appreciate if you could please state your name and institution. Please, Raquel, go ahead.
Okay, good afternoon. It's Raquel Desire from JP Morgan. I've got two questions, please. Can I start with the EUR 7 billion of firepower that you have available? I think you're quite clear that shareholder returns is the priority. But I guess I was trying to understand how you think about growth of creative opportunities. So if we think about the things you're looking at, EUR 7 billion is quite a large number.
Should we assume that the pipeline of what you're looking at is substantially smaller than that EUR 7 billion? So how do we try and think about that? And if I think about the opportunities you have, are we talking traditional towers, or is it more the adjacencies that you spend a bit of time on? So that's the first question. And maybe I'll let you answer that before I ask the second one. Well, we're not even close to EUR 7 billion. Simply in this moment, in our pipe for acquisition, there is no acquisition in this moment. I think I was very clear. We are not looking to geographic expansion. On the contrary, we're simplifying. We're an industrial operator. So Vincent made clear that where we operate, if there is where we are not number one and number two, because in this case, antitrust can put some limits.
If we are not number one and number two, or there are opportunities to consolidate in this market, there could be something interesting. I tended to rule out big numbers in adjacencies. I don't see us becoming a monster fiber company or becoming and when you look at active networks, we're talking about so we are the biggest we are the largest in Europe, and you see that but no, we are not. Great. Thank you.
Then two quick clarifications on the guidance you've given. When we look at their free cash lift for 2027, there's a EUR 1 billion gap between the recurring level cash flow and the all-in cash flow. And I think Raquel mentioned that the BTS is probably EUR 450 million. So I guess I just wanted to understand, does that drop off from 2027 onwards?
Then I guess if that's 450 there, there's 550 of expansion CapEx, which is bigger than the run rate today. So can you sort of talk us through it? It sounds like you're spending more in expansion going forward. You want to take it? Yeah, I can take it. But basically, we are assuming a bit more than EUR 500 million of expansion CapEx all-in. So that is essentially towers, other expansion CapEx, also efficiency CapEx, and then around EUR 400 million of ILTUSUD CapEx. We believe that as we continue finding opportunities to continue expanding our business organically, but also to do cash advances. So we believe that that level of expansion CapEx is going to be sustained. What is going to decrease is the ILTUSUD CapEx. So it's only EUR 400 million in 2027. It's maybe a couple of 100 million in 2028.
And you know that by 2030, Iliad CapEx is going to be completed. And the last bit was just you did 9%-10% organic growth in 2023 on top line, which is pretty impressive. When we look at your guidance, is that then just prudent, or was there some exceptional realities to what you delivered in 2023? Well, we had a very good 2023. I think that replicating such an incredible 2023, it's what we work every day for. But I think that having a 9% organic every year, I wish we were there. We had some tailwinds, as Vincent said, this year on the organic, and the Iliad was very big. So don't forget that 2022 and 2023 were the peak of the Iliad program. And the Iliad brings you very good effect. CPI was a little bit higher than what we should expect.
We should expect a decline in CPI. So you have a higher ILTUSUD and a higher CPI. So the colo, our base case is that on the colo, we can do the same, but ILTUSUD will tend to decrease and CPI will tend to decrease.
Yes. Hi, Fabio Pavan , Mediobanca. Thank you for the presentation, for taking my question. Just to put the plan into the right context, what are your expectations for the industry? How do you expect the telecom market will evolve in terms of consolidation? You told about the risk, but what are your expectations? And also on the tower side, if we get some point, there will be further consolidation in the European space, so. Well, thank you, Fabio. I think that let's start from the M&O side.
From the M&O side, I see two different types of consolidation that both are going to be supported by possibly a new way of looking from the EU. One is the consolidation of the M&Os. You saw in Spain. My guess is that the UK would follow, and more to come. This is one possibility. The second possibility is more network consolidation. It's not necessarily true that you have less operators, but for sure you will have less networks. Let's use the UK examples. In case Three UK merges with Vodafone, you will have basically three M&O plus at least two large MVNO, but two networks. Only two networks. So the one will be the Everything Everywhere BT network, and the other one will be the big one made by Three Vodafone VMO2. So this is something that we will see more in Europe. It's more efficient.
I don't think we will go there. There has been a debate in this sense in the U.S., the single network, single 5G network. I don't think that a single network can be feasible because it's too risky. So it's like putting all the eggs in a basket. So a prudent state will never allow it. But two networks is efficient. On the tower sector, short-term, what I see is in-market optimization. So let's make two different examples so I give you the two extremes. Italy, two tower companies. Spain, four tower companies. So you easily understand that four tower companies, you can manage 10,000 sites or 15,000 sites basically with the same number of people, with the same processes, with the same systems, with the same so it would be much more efficient.
And ultimately, this efficiency turns into better rates for the MNOs and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, so. Big consolidations, the market is not there today. Rates are too high. The market sentiment is not for big transformational deals, etc. Then if you look sometime in the future, having in Europe six or seven large tower operators seems to be inefficient again. So you have, let's start from the big ones. You have Cellnex, the independent Cellnex, American Tower. Then you have PTI, Phoenix Towers. Then you have Vantage. Then you have Totem. Then you have GD Towers. Then you have Tawal. So you understand. So the longer the list, the worst is in terms of scale, efficiency. So I go always to the engineer that tells you that it's not efficient. Oh, Taio, please. Taio Bicher from Société Générale. Oh, yeah. Sorry. So first question is for Marco.
You gave us a lot of stats about how well concentrated is your customer base that mitigate the risk. But you didn't show the stats in terms of the credit quality of your clients. So if you can tell us how you mitigate the risk and the fact that a lot of your clients are. You take it. Not the strongest balance sheet in the industry. The second one is for Simone. You talk a lot about efficiency. And a significant portion of this efficiency, it's in the fact that you rationalize the DTS and you also rationalize your overlapping towers. Of course, that also assumes that your clients will be relatively happy. This is a question we asked a number of times to your previous management.
They said that there are some issues whenever there is MLA versus MSA because if there is an MLA and the contract is linked to the tower, then the clients, if they want to move it, they don't move. So therefore, we have to provide some incentive. So how much of the savings you've backed in on your guidance today are in full, or you already take into account some of the savings that have to be shared with your clients? And the third one is for Raimon. I've seen that in the renewal, you were showing that you have early renewals with contracts that basically expire. But I've seen three out of four, the renewal comes with significant CapEx attached, mostly on fiber. So it looks at the lack of Telefónica, the lack of WEEC. They don't just give a renewal for free. They just want additional CapEx.
So how much of this additional CapEx is backed in, potentially? Vodafone doesn't know in the U.K. is backed in on your guidance? Thank you. I can take the first one. So your first one is working? Yeah. It's on backlog. So you're right. What is important is to assess the credit quality. Our first customer, if my memory is good, Hutchison Group is A-. So as the highest credit quality for our customers, this is number one. Just to give you an order of magnitude, more than 50%-55% of our backlog is from investment grade customers. So again, credit risk is very important. We monitor it with the finance team, but also the diversification of our incorporated tenants with 16 is extremely important. Okay. I can answer the second question about, well, the willingness of our customers to cooperate in these programs.
Well, I think that the secret is to share part of the value with our customers. It's true. It is more true on the BTS. The BTS is easier, let me say. The legacy-to-legacy consolidation is a little bit more complicated because you generate something to our customers that is not expected. It's not so useful for them. It's more useful for us. But yes, we considered already the incentives to be given to our customers. And I should say that first, we already have a couple of agreements in this sense, and the reaction from the other customers was not at all, well, a stop. So we are seeing a certain availability to follow us. On purpose, I spoke about addressable market because I don't know. Probably it will not be 10%, excuse me, 100%. But there's willingness to do.
I think there is a willingness of rationalization, generally speaking. So the customers are not an exception. Maybe, Taio, if I may, just to make sure we understand your third question. You were asking about MSA renewals, so contracts with our clients. If we are expecting CapEx associated with those renewals. Apologies. It's basically the renewal. You show in, I think, slide 23, if I remember, where four contracts were renewed over the past few years. And I've seen that three out of four had FTTN or fiber element attached, including Telefónica in Spain. So the question is it looks that renewal doesn't come for free. Effectively, the client's asking for additional CapEx. Yeah, I remember well. So two and three. No, it's not. So effectively, the question is how much of this CapEx is basically backed in on your guidance that you have to. No, sorry.
It's the other way around. So the renewal comes as a renewal. When you sit with the client, every time you sit with the client, there are opportunities that are basically new opportunities. And those new opportunities are already included in our CapEx that we are forecasting in the plan. So the renewal, per se, does not come with CapEx. And by the way sorry, allow me not to mention the client, but one client asked us a new, very large BTS program, and we just said no because we didn't see the space of such a large BTS program in a specific market where we considered you remember the picture that Simone showed? So in that specific market, there was not the space for such a big BTS program, and then we said no.
But we've been working, and we're still working on renewing parts of the content with them. So no, there is not an automatic liaison between renewing and having more CapEx. Hi, Andrew. This way, please. In there? Thanks, everyone. It's Andrew Lee from Goldman Sachs. I just wanted to follow up on Akio's organic growth question and then also talk about your asset sales just in light of the Ireland sale this morning. On the organic growth side, just trying to balance what seems slightly contradictory in terms of your statements about the upcoming densification and the need for 5G rollout to accelerate in Europe and then your assumption that your BTS build-to-suit co-tenancy goes from 1.54 to 1.7 over four years. It seems relatively low.
The question really is when do you think densification really kicks in in terms of operators really driving for that densification to deliver 5G? Is it within that time period? How should we think about that kind of underlying growth driver? Then the second question was just on your asset sales. You hint that you potentially sell Ireland and Austria, and we see people swarm for your assets. It looks like a seller's market. I wanted to just get a bit more insight from you guys on the level of demand you're seeing. How do you actually control this? Because it looks like there's a huge amount of pent-up private demand. Are you seeing more broad-based interest for your assets than just those assets you're hinting at selling in terms of Ireland and Austria? Thank you. Okay.
Well, I would say that moving to 1.7, having a sort of 15,000 towers to build from now to 2027, it's quite a big number. Then if you look to our figures by country, you will see a lot of very interesting and some of the answers come from de-averaging the number. I mean, Italy and Spain, the oldest operation we have, we are well above two in terms of customer ratio. Portugal is going in the same direction, around two. England, we will see because it will depend very much which kind of combination will be allowed and in case the combination will be allowed.
So how should we imagine that those two networks that will exist first, when Three and Vodafone will really be merged and how long they will so but there are some countries, like for example, the Netherlands, like for example, Switzerland, like for example, Poland, where there are specific local reasons for not having a 2.0. Switzerland, electromagnetic limits are at 4 volts per meter, 4. In England, it's sort of 60, I think. So you understand. So simply, I cannot co-locate that much. And this is why, for example, in Switzerland, we are pushing a lot the run-sharing, which is counterintuitive. But if you can do nothing, a run-sharing is better than nothing. So let's try. And this is why the idea we had of the average revenue per tower. You are in the telco business since quite some time.
So you will remember when the MNOs were giving you the ARPU divided by voice ARPU and data ARPU. And then they said, "That's the ARPU." Now, I think that progressively, having the average revenue per tower split between anchor tenant, second tenant, co-tenant, run-sharing, it becomes less interesting. It's how much money I'm getting from this asset. That's it. On your second question, there is value in being a large multinational operator. Of course, today, with our share price where it is, it seems that there is a strong incentive in getting the value from the private valuation versus the public valuation. Yes, but if you look at the portfolio, if you make a portfolio analysis, a portfolio analysis tells you that some countries give you stabilization, give you stability, give you secure cash flow, give you low risk, as the colleague was mentioning before, etc.
So the point is we have a plan, and the plan includes the fact that periodically, we make a strategic review of the portfolio. You don't change your strategy every six months because your strategy is your direction of navigation. So you cannot make a slalom. You cannot turn every three minutes. But what I can tell you is that periodically, we'll review our portfolio, and we will allocate the resources in the best way to create long-term value for the shareholders. If the longer-term value comes from keeping an asset, we keep an asset. If the long-term value comes from non-keeping an asset, we just demonstrate it. We are not shy. Believe me, we are not shy. Question? Fernando Cordón? Yep. Okay. Fernando Cordón, from Santander. Two questions, if I may. The first one is regarding the leverage path that you have in the picture in the presentation.
This 0.4-0.5 times trend, just to confirm that it includes the already committed or the already guided dividends from 2026 onwards in order to understand this average deleverage. The second point is in the organic growth CapEx. Up to now, you have been guiding with this 10% oversell, this EUR 500 million envelope that you have committed for 2027. Just to understand, what are your expectations regarding how this organic growth CapEx flows into organic growth in revenues. So to what extent you should be maintaining this level of organic growth depending on the expected growth in sales that you would be forecasting. Finally, there has been one novelty in your presentation, which is the Land Co.
I just would like to understand at which extent you are managing the relationship between the land co and the service co, if we can understand Cellnex as a service co, or what would be the relationship between both, particularly in how the leases would be flowing from the land co to Cellnex. Okay. Thank you, Fernando. You want to? So the first, you already answered. Okay? Francis, yes. That was easy. So it's the shortest answer. The most complicated one for you. So the second. The idea of splitting or giving you more visibility is that because first of all, we want to kill some wrong ideas. For example, co-location comes without CapEx. Okay. That's wrong. And I explain you why. New antenna, and I was at the Mobile World Congress, and I spoke with the guys who make the antenna.
I said, "Every antenna is as heavy as me." So you have to take 80 kilos, and you bring 80 kilos by three sectors. So it's more than 200 kilos, and you put at 30 meters. And if you have two tenants, you have half a ton at 30 meters, which means that several times, you have to strengthen the infrastructure because otherwise, the first windy day, you get your tower two miles from the original place. By the way, there has been a tornado, a sort of a tornado in northern Italy, and we lost two towers because of this, because of the weight. Boom. They collapsed. Thank God, nobody in the area, so. But you can easily imagine. You have a portfolio. Strengthening a tower costs EUR 25,000. Let's say EUR 20,000-30,000. So once you strengthen once, it's harder to believe that you go back, etc.
So that's an envelope that tends to decrease. But it was interesting to give you also the idea of how much are the CapEx not related to towers. So you have one basket that are CapEx related to towers, and you know that these can progressively go to reduce because I already updated a larger part of my portfolio. The other, you can easily make some analysis, and you will see that the payback of these CapEx, it's quite good. When you stay five minutes with the new disclosure that Raimon is providing you, you will see that those CapEx are fairly interesting. And this goes to Simone's point that we invest with good rationality in terms of capital allocation. And then there are efficiency CapEx, and efficiency CapEx are driven both from other rationalization, and these are relatively simple to believe.
So I think that part of the answer will be starting going through the new representation we're giving. Land Co. I'm a strong believer of Land Co, and I think that Cellnex will be, again, a first mover in this. So on one hand, there is a defensive element, and there is an effectiveness element. Then I answer to your question. So the defensive element is in Europe, there are smaller land aggregators that are fairly aggressive and fairly, I would say, hostile. Some of them, even with money of large fund and private equity, that I think could put better their money because having a large private equity, using predatory attitude, it seems a little bit a poor strategy for a large private equity. So this is the defensive answer.
But there is also in terms of effectiveness, if you are dedicated, if you wake up in the morning and you know that your scope is buying land, guess what you do? You buy land. If it is one of the many things that you have to do, you will share your time with the many things you have to do. So I think that we can become much more effective. That does not mean that we have to buy every land on the planet. We have to buy the most valuable land where we have the most valuable tower, so ABC analysis. The contract will be a mirror contract. So the contract will be mirrored. So I have a 30-year contract with my anchor tenant. I make a 30-year contract with her.
So we want to match as much as possible in order not to leave unnecessary risks or not to and normally, we have very long contracts. So what we can get to the Land Co is an even more predictable source of resources and a very good credit merit. Possibly, this company could have a dedicated capital structure because the risk of this sector is even lower. And possibly, it can attract the attention of even lower-return capital. Question here? Fernando, if you have the mic. Who has the mic? Oh, okay. Sorry. We will come. And Russell, you will be next. Okay? Hi. Andrei Stepeshchuk from UBS, and thank you for the presentation. I've got two areas of questions. One is just following up on this Land Co you mentioned. First of all, there are going to be some tax efficiencies. If you could elaborate on that.
And then just looking at the overall expansion/efficiency CapEx, I mean, most of it up to date has been going into prepayments or renegotiations. But now, I think you're going to be emphasizing more land acquisition. So if you could give us an idea down the road of how this CapEx is going to be split among all the various different ways where you can optimize leases. That's the first question. The second one, just on M&A. So you helpfully gave us kind of 1% of revenues at risk from the three deals that we know about. So can you just elaborate in terms of that 1% being? Is that, for example, renegotiations of current contracts? Is that canceled, build-to-suit contracts that are just some color on that?
And then on that also, so you mentioned that there are some run-sharing protections in many of your contracts, but you also assume growth from run-sharing in terms of revenue. So if you can explain that, please. Thank you very much. Okay. So you take the second? Sorry. Tell me again the first. Lease. Lease. Well, in this moment, in this very moment, we are locating between acquisition so first, the lease number, it's not only land lease. There are duct leases. There are many things inside the lease. And so the first thing that we have to do is to take the lease portfolio, to decompose the lease portfolio, and say, "Okay. Each of these components needs a different approach." Duct is a regulated asset, and my counterparty is Orange on a regulated asset.
So you can easily imagine that my level of flexibility with Orange on a regulated asset is zero or proxy to zero. But there are other possibilities that are very interesting. Here, you have the possibility of the acquisition, the possibility of the prepayment, the possibility of the right of surface. There are many possibilities. So let's take how much we allocated in the past and how much we could think to allocate in the future. In the past, we allocated approximately south of EUR 100 million per year in terms of acquisition and more or less EUR 50 million in terms of efficiency cash advances. Cash advance and whatever. I think that in terms of acquisition, we can go at least for twice as much, so something north of EUR 200 million. And on cash advance, you are in the hand of your counterparty.
So the number we saw today can be increased but not dramatically increased. Yeah. So the point of M&A consolidation, so just to understand the analysis we do, is basically we take how much of our POP, the first analysis, are protected or unprotected based on our MSA. If they are not protected, how much of our POP between the two entities that may merge or consolidate are within our towers? So if two POPs in one tower, the probability to lose one is obviously more than probable. Then we look at how much of our POPs versus the other tower costs. And then if they are close by the non-protected POP, we will imagine how much we put a probability, how much will stay with us, how much will come to the other. So to your questions, the 1% is not linked to build-to-suit.
The big, big part of build-to-suit, if you remember the flags of Simone, are in France and in Poland where there are huge needs for new infrastructures. So what we do is what I just explained. It's not build-to-suit that are being avoided. This is about POPs that we may lose. Again, we may lose. This is the worst case of non-protected POP for these three geographies. Sorry. But what normally happens is that look, it's physically impossible that you put the clients of two operators in one network because the network will explode. So normally, what we do is we allow some decommissioning, and we swap for some densification. So it's wrong to push the CTO in a direction he doesn't like. It's much better to go in the direction he likes and to solve the problem he has.
The problem he has is, "I want a strong network where there is the concentration of my client." And so what we tell them is, "Okay. Why don't you dismantle these, and in exchange of this fee, we give you this where you can strengthen because it's downtown London?" And this works. And it's exactly what we are doing in this moment in case the Three UK-Vodafone merger happens. Vodafone committed to have a much more powerful combined network, but that does not come as a miracle. So they have to put new sites. So we measure the maximum negative impact. Then we sit with the CTO and said, "Okay. Let's mitigate the impact.
I give you what you need, where you need to make savings, and we let you make efficiently the CapEx that, so in reality, he saves twice because he saves canceling part of useless network, and he has a very efficient and very low-cost way to build the network where he needs to densify. So CTOs normally are happy at the end. It was a third question about run-sharing. What do we mean by run-sharing protection? And also, what do we mean by run-sharing revenues in the future? Okay. So when we did our 40 deals, obviously, we wanted to make sure that the opportunity for growth was protected, that we could have new POPs. So obviously, what we said is, "In the case that you, anchor tenants, want to run-share with the customers, and you may prevent me to have future growth, I want to be protected.
So my cost of my loss of cost opportunity needs to be protected." So in some cases, either they cannot run-share, and we need to sit and to negotiate. In some cases, they are foreseen to run-share, but there is a multiplier that we will not disclose for commercial reasons. There's a multiplier of our anchor fee, which in the end represents an upside for us. So it's not going to be two, but it's not going to be one. Question, please. Great. Thank you. It's Rachel Ranjak from Deutsche Bank. Two questions, please, and a quick follow-up on the Land Co. I think you said initially there are going to be 10,000 sites in that vehicle. I think current ownership of land is close to 10%. Long term, you said 20%. So the question is, is it still 20%, or is that target going higher? Please.
And secondly, on the active sharing, given some incremental detail now, but how receptive are the MNOs to two-sharing? Because if I think back, it was 2021 initially, the Poland deal, when you talked about it and being able to port it across to some of the other markets. So how are the discussions going? Is there some reluctance from MNOs, or are they more open? Thank you. In the U.S., I was talking with during the Mobile World Congress, I met two of my U.S. peers. And one was at 65% land ownership, and the other was at 45% land ownership. And when I told him that we were at 14%, he had sort of a little smile on the face, so like a poor guy. And so bad. So I think that if we go to 20%, it's not enough. I don't think it's enough.
Forget, we will never be at 70 or neither at 45. So this is Europe. This is not and sorry, I say this is Europe not because I pretend to be better or worse, but they bought the land when they were building the tower, which is the best moment for buying the land. I build the tower. I'm discussing with the farmer. If he gives me the access to a small piece of his land, maybe that I can convince him to sell it. When the farmer is the life of a farmer is fairly tough. And when he gets money doing nothing, maybe he likes. So it's not so obvious then. I add that Europe has an incredibly complex legislation for real estate. So I make an example of France.
If you wanted to have a contract longer than 12 years, you have a long list of taxes that make a long-term contract not particularly tax-efficient. Now, we have to consider that Europe is Europe. So we have to face different things. But yes, to your question, 20%, medium-term is not a good target. On the second question, run-sharing, well, look, I think that everybody at a certain point of life should face the reality. So when you have the ARPU at EUR 20, the reality is that I feel rich enough for having a certain cost structure. When your ARPU goes to 12, 13, 9, 7 so I was watching an Italian advertising at EUR 7.95 VAT included. Come on. EUR 7.95 for 200 GB at EUR 7.95 VAT included? So it's difficult. So you needed to start sharing infrastructure. You have two chances.
You kill the marketing guy, or you give more flexibility to your CTO. I think that giving more flexibility to the CTO will be the new normal. I personally am not a big fan of the joint ventures, the joint ventures in which normally, joint ventures are geographic joint ventures. You do the north. I do the south. You do the east. I do the west. I'm not a big fan. I prefer to have, "Okay. You are on the driving seat. I'm on the backseat." That's it. You drive. If the quality is good, it's your merit. If the quality is bad, it's your fault. But at least it's clear. I think that run-sharing has a big pro. It's clear. It's efficient, and it's clear. Joint ventures are, I think, less clear, maybe as efficient but less clear.
And in Poland, we are trying to understand if there is a third way. For the time being, with our anchor client, you have in front of you the CEO of Poland, so you can and it works. It works good. We are having good returns, by the way. Returns are interesting, so. David? Thank you very much. It's David Wright from Bank of America. I guess a tangent to the question just asked. I sat in an industry group recently with some CTOs of the big European telecoms companies. And one of the things they're currently looking to do is to retire aged mobile network. And we've seen the process of retiring 3G networks almost complete across Europe. And of course, the other dynamic they're currently undergoing is they're pursuing Open RAN technologies.
But of course, Open RAN doesn't support 2G, and they would quite like to decommission some 2G. One of the solutions proposed is whether 2G could be minimized and passed down to the towerco's, who could even run minimal networks for emergency services, etc. Is that something you've ever even debated, thought about? Does that seem interesting? Is it logical? Yes, it's very logical. It's easy. No, it's not easy at all. I'm sorry. It's very logical because at the end, you can simply switch off. It's not true what I was telling you before. So it is possible for a single 2G network probably to carry the traffic of an entire country. So every 2G network is much more powerful than the real need 2G of a single operator, so.
The truth is that the only time I personally tried to approach one MNO, the CEO said yes, and the CTO said no. There were even more complex more complication about the spectrum allocation. It depends if the spectrum can be reallocated, how you split the benefit on the spectrum, etc. So there is a strong rationale. It's totally unclear how to make it. The solution is one of the MNOs running and giving national roaming to the others or having a third party giving equal access to the others. I have not the answer. I have not the answer. In this moment, there is not a business case in this sense. The fact that 3G has been switched off, I'm less enthusiastic than what you said. It is in the process of. It isn't, but it's not. If you the Nordics, they are doing. Germany, they are doing.
Just, you go to Italy, they're not doing. France, they're not doing. Spain, depends. Just one additional question, if that's possible. Sorry, one additional question. On the indoor assumptions on DAS and small cells, etc., how are you considering the resilience of Wi-Fi within that debate? Simone, that's for you. And especially going to Wi-Fi 7, incredibly sort of upgraded technology, much more efficient, seems to be challenging the kind of indoor DAS solutions. How do you perceive that battle? Well, it's a long story, in reality, because the Wi-Fi version. Wi-Fi 7 is not yesterday. Yeah. So I think there are two different scenarios. One is on unlicensed spectrum, generally speaking. The other one is on licensed spectrum. I don't think that they are really competitors. We have some experience. We saw some experience of coverage on Wi-Fi.
But I think that there are two parallel markets that are not substituting each other. I see more difference between small cell and DAS than between because the indoor coverage would be done by with DAS systems. The small cell active multi-operator is something very recent. I think that in that case, we will see a difference. But on the indoor coverage or event coverage, you cannot think you use Wi-Fi, sincerely, in my personal opinion, because you have to register. Then you have to give your data. It's something that is not so comfortable on a big base. And then the quality of service is not going to be unforgettable. It depends what do you need it for. Do you need it for something that is really best effort? Okay, maybe that you can do it. It's cheaper than, so.
But if you need any level of quality of service, I think that, sorry, don't misunderstand. Wi-Fi 7 works beautifully. But it depends which kind of service you're going to deliver. If you wanted to have a carrier-grade service, I'm more doubtful. If you want to build, there are many, many, many aspects. You cannot build in that case. So it could be for airport, for example, they are using Wi-Fi. Normally, it works quite bad. But they are using Wi-Fi, for sure not 7 nor 6, I imagine. No, it's 5. But the cellular coverage is much more reliable, generally speaking. I was thinking Giorgio Saint-Jacob. So you can raise your hand. Thanks. Thanks to Jacob Bluestone from BNP Exane. Two questions, please.
Firstly, on your organic growth, where you said 20% of growth is uncontracted, just hoping you can maybe just maybe expand a little bit on that just to give us a bit of confidence about the growth outlook. Specifically, is that 20% mostly coming through things like DAS, small cell, RAN as a service, and fiber, so things that are much more in their infancy? Or is that sort of evenly spread across all your revenue drivers? And if it is very reliant on these sort of newer revenue streams coming on board, can you maybe just help us understand how does the 10%-15% growth that you're guiding in those segments compare to what you've been doing until now? So that's the first question.
The second question is, you've made a number of comments today that you would be keen on potentially starting the cash returns earlier. Could you maybe just help us understand what would you need to see to do that? Thank you. Yes. So I give you a short answer on the first, and then I leave it to Vincent to elaborate. No, the growth is going to be across the portfolio. Otherwise, we wouldn't keep the 80/20 at the end of the five-year time. So the bulk will be from towers. But given the relative sizes, the growth from other, in particular from active, is more important in terms of CAGR vis-à-vis. So if you take the overall pool, the vast majority comes from the tower. But if you take the single CAGR, the CAGR of the active is higher. And then I leave it.
But before leaving to you, I answer to your second question. So then I leave to Vincent. I think that disposing of Ireland and making our homework for the rest of the year, we go to investment grade because the direction, if we don't do something particularly silly, it goes to the Investment Grade. But we said also that we want to stay investment grade . So if in 2025, I start using significant resources to I'm not talking about the dividends we are paying today, okay? I'm talking about something more material.
You see that you make some math, and you see that I'm going very close to the limit when the rating agencies will knock my door and say, "Hey, guys, did you forget something?" In case we can have multiple portfolio rotations, you will see that the net effect of the lower EBITDA and the higher cash, since we are selling normally at very decent multiples, gives us flexibility to have something that we can do in 2025. Now, what we can do in 2025 is to anticipate the dividend, or possibly in 2025, the share price will be still attractive enough to do something different like a share buyback. I would love to have no alternative than paying dividends because it means that my share price is so high that there is no share buyback option.
But I think that it's possible that if we have an excess of resources as I told you, tick the box of Ireland. Now, we are going to work on Austria. We're not forced to sell Austria. If we don't find a good offer, maybe that's so I can't promise you that I will make the sale of then. If you ask me what is my gut feeling, my gut feeling is that there is a scarcity of good portfolio assets. As Andrew was saying before, it's possible that someone shows up with a good price. If someone shows up with a good price, as I said before to the questioner, I don't see in this moment any industrial investment that calls my attention so exciting. And therefore, I think that if it was today, a share buyback would be credibly something happening in 2025.
But one thing is telling you what I predict, and different is what I commit. So it's two different verbs. On the questions, I discussed a lot about the 80, and your question now is on the 20. So the 20, to be extremely clear, mainly 60%-70% is about towers. How do we capture this growth? We have a pipeline, as we speak, of requests from our customers. It takes us 12, 15, 18 months. So what we know is the pipeline is full, and the delivery for the coming 1 year, 1 year and a half, is already secured, even if it's in the unsecure parts. Now, where does it come from? We said we'll do 30,000 POPs, half more or less from POPs new co-locations and half from build-to-suit. So this 20% is mainly composed on towers, on new POPs.
We have already a pipeline secured, and we know, based on the cell plans of our MNOs, that we will have 15,000 POPs in the coming four years. Does it answer? Which requires CapEx for tower upgrade, which requires permits, which requires activities. And on the point of what is behind the 10%-15%, so the growth is high, the absolute number is low. So on the DAS, small cell and run-as-a-service, clearly, the biggest value driver will be the run-as-a-service of Poland because 5G will be deployed, and we know that our customers will need more emission services. This is the first. And on the fiber connectivity and housing services, we mention our project in France, Nexloop, where we will have a lot of revenue coming. We have done already a lot of deployment, and now we will have the return of our invested capital.
This will be the biggest value driver of this line to the 10%-15%. Giorgio? Giorgio Zerodacono from Citi. Two questions. The first one is on strategic options. Earlier, Marco, you mentioned that in this interest rate environment, maybe pan-European consolidation could take time. But I just wanted to ask a question around mergers because, obviously, with similar balance sheets, it may be earlier rather than later that these things can happen. So curious to hear from you whether that could be something of interest. And also, historically, Cellnex was averse to the idea of a major telco being a major shareholder, whether that aversion remains or whether maybe there could be more flexibility in having a significant shareholder that can also be a customer. And the second question is more on the guidance for 2024 and 2025. I think it's page 76.
When I look at the components between EBITDA and recurring levered free cash flow, it looks like there is no increase between the two years. Conversely, there is a significant increase in the investments you make between recurring levered free cash flow and free cash flow. So even though Build-to-Suit is supposed to be trending down, free cash flow is not growing as much as recurring levered free cash flow. So I'm just curious what's driving that and whether the two are maybe linked in terms of significant ground lease acquisitions you are planning specifically for 2025. Thank you. I take the first. You take the second. Or maybe I will need to come back because it's quite detailed. So actually, go ahead. I'm not against merger per se. So if it creates value to my investors, I'm not against any solution. Simply, I don't see it coming.
If you look at Europe, there are solutions that are not fitting particularly well with us. Let's take Totem. I cannot do nothing with Totem because in France, we become 85% market share, so impossible. If I look at Vantage, we are overlapped in several areas. So I'm overlapped in England. I'm overlapped in Italy. I'm overlapped in Spain. I'm overlapped everywhere. So the one which makes a lot of geographic sense is GD Towers. But I think that you should ask to the guys who paid 28x how they think to make the returns. So it's not me. It's possibly. And with reference to the presence of an MNO inside the share capital, it depends. What are the governance rights that you associate to this portfolio?
So if you give dominant governance rights, I tell you that I see more minus than plus because we have a very diversified client base. And the client will tell me, "Are you an independent player? Are you a branch of my competitor? Who are you?" If it comes with some mitigation on the governance rights, where you are an important shareholder with all the rights to express your voice but not dominantly, we should be agnostic and realistic. So if it creates value, why not? But it cannot turn into a minus in the relation with the existing clients, which, by the way, are giving us, I think, a decent cash flow for the coming years. On the free cash flow, I will try, Giorgio. And if I'm not answering, please, please ask the question again.
I would say that the main difference, I mean, clearly, recurring levered free cash flow is growing, so 2024 compared to 2023, 2025 compared to 2024. It is true that maybe the phasing of the Build-to-Suit CapEx might be having an impact. So what we are expecting is EUR 1.5 billion of Build-to-Suit CapEx that was last year. So it's going to be EUR 1.3 billion in 2024, EUR 1.5 billion sorry, EUR 1.1 billion in 2025. So maybe recurring levered free cash flow is increasing. But because of the more intensity of Build-to-Suit CapEx, you can see that the free cash flow in 2024 and 2025 remains flat. If that makes sense, that should be the answer. Emmet? Others? There's a gentleman there and one there. There's one there and one there. Just in the interest of time, I'll just ask one question, please.
The question is on secondary tenancies. You kindly gave some pretty good details on the renewal of the contract with Telefónica, your anchor tenant in Spain. Could you talk a little bit about new contracts that you're signing with secondary tenants and what some of the terms are on those contracts? What I'm thinking of, is there any sign that telco towers in Europe are getting a little bit more pricing power when it comes to the yields that you receive from the telcos? Because there's obviously a very big gap in the discount between what the primary tenant pays and the secondary tenant. So is there any sign that that gap is closing, or will it close over time? What's the average duration that a secondary tenant signs on for?
And then lastly, if there were to be consolidation, does that secondary tenant have the right to walk away from the contract earlier than the stated contract terms? Thank you. Okay. So on the price difference between an anchor tenant and a secondary tenant, I'm sorry, but the problem is not industrial. It's financial. So with an anchor tenant, I paid upfront the value of your contract. So there is an industrial component, which is, let me say, cost-driven. And there is a financial component, which is what's the value of the contract. So the rental fee can be EUR 15 thousand or EUR 55 thousand per year. It depends only how much I paid you the tower upfront. So let me say that the market of the anchor tenant is a market per se.
It depends on what is the number you want upfront, and I tell you what is the anchor fee. On the second tenant, it's a market. This is the market. The market is the market of the anchor tenant. So your question is very interesting. So are the towerco gaining more power? When the market is very fragmented, the answer is no. When the market is more concentrated, I think that it's more balanced, which does not mean that we are squeezing the MNO in a territory where they are not comfortable. Simply, there are again, what Simone was saying, there are less opportunities to have overlapping of existing infrastructure. So there is my tower, or there is Vantage Tower. It's fairly unlikely that we have four towers. It's unlikely. And for example, in Spain, sometimes, we have three towers in one square kilometer, which is fairly absurd.
On this question of the secondary tenant, so to complement Marco, this is really a national discussion. So it's not only the bargaining power but the growth that there is in the market. So in the end, the discussion we're having with customers is, if you want to lower the secondary tenants, we need to have growth, and this needs to be net-net positive. On the tenor, we have, again, very specific, we are signing so the 10%, 10%, for instance, with Telefónica, which weren't related to MSA. On secondary, we are about to sign a 10-year contract. And in some cases, if you want to exceed, you have termination fees of several years, also depending on who is funding the CAPEX of the strengthenings, if there is. So there is no sorry to answer, but there is no global answer.
What is clear is, obviously, if there is growth, obviously, as anybody, we want to capture the growth, and we want to be competitive on price. Sorry. Before getting to the next question, I want to make an announcement. S&P just awarded us with an investment grade. We are investment grade. We delivered nine months before the end of the year. It's great, so you were looking at me. I was a little bit trembling. It was a bit uncomfortable because it should arrive. And we were taking more questions as possible to let you speak and to keep you here. Now, if you want to go home and get but in any case, it's quite important to us. I think that what has been awarded by the rating agencies is not only the sale of Ireland. It would be trivial if it was only this.
I think it's the commitment of staying rational, is the commitment of having a clear capital allocation, a prudent capital allocation. And so that's a great work of the team, I think, especially all the people that you don't see every day on the stage. So there is, believe me, an incredible quantity of work behind it. So thank you, guys. With this, I think it's the best moment just to go. I think there are one follow-up question more. Okay. Perfect. You're the CEO, so please. When investment grade will arrive? James, here. Thank you, James Ratzer, from New Street Research. Well, first of all, many congratulations for that announcement you were just able to make.
So it's interesting if I could just focus on another area of upside you talked about today, which is the co-location to suit, which I think is quite a kind of new phenomenon for you and just kind of started in the last quarter, I think, in a few of your markets. That's despite the fact you've done BTS now for 4 or 5 years. So I suppose what I was interested in is, what's changed now to make that possible? And you talked about a 30% saving to come from that. What's that 30% in relation to? Is that to the relation or in relation to the cost of two towers you would build, or is it just to the single tower?
And then if I could ask us kind of just on a second question, just on the Land Co topic, I think in the past, I've heard people say these deals are done at around a cost of 7x the annual lease. Is that still appropriate? Where are you seeing the kind of market rates at the moment? And in the past, that cost, I think, has been booked through M&A CapEx, i.e., below the FCF line. Is that still likely to be the case before? So the kind of EUR 200 million you're talking about comes out below FCF. Thank you. That's a very good question. So the last, we will leave and see because I agree with you that having a CapEx above the recurrent between the recurrent and the frequency below the frequency, it's a nightmare, not only for you.
Believe me, even for me, when I have to make the budget, thanks God that I'm a former CFO because otherwise, it would be a nightmare. So your first question, I think that the biggest mistake was our fault, I tell you. We were convinced that we had to convince the CTO that it would be faster to put an antenna on an existing site than on a new site, which, by the way, is not obvious that you convince the CTO. The truth is that you have to talk with two people, with the CTO and with the CFO. So as I said before, a BTS is a part of an industrial commitment and a part of a financial commitment. If I co-locate you and I don't give you the financial part of the contract, you're not happy because you say, "Okay, good.
Industry is working, but I'm losing a possibly interesting financial lever that I'm using, let's say, for buying the network, for buying the active. So what we are saying is, let's split the contract. You're not going to pay so we save the building on the tower, the maintenance of the tower, the rental of the land, etc. We share part of this benefit, but I leave you the financial component of the contract. So if a tower should cost let's shoot a number, 250,000 for a BTS. For a CTS, it would have been 100 building the tower and then 150 financial part of the contract. So what I do is, I leave you the 150. With me, with a second anchor tenant contract, so same duration, etc., possibly, you're not going to pay EUR 22,000. You're going to pay EUR 16,000.
So CTO is happy, CFO is happy, and we can convince. Then we need to have the two towers. Otherwise, we're talking about nothing. So part of the responsibility was we did not understand properly the needs of the customer. Sometimes, you think that the customer is not part of the equation, which is fairly wrong. So this was the first question. The second question was about the land. I wish it was 7x. Believe me, you can't imagine how much I wish it was 7x. No. Today, it goes between 10x-12x with some markets that are outliers in both directions. There are some countries where it costs less and some other countries where it costs much more or basically impossible. If you go to a Swiss farmer and you try to convince him to sell you a piece of land, good luck.
Go for me, please. So this is no. But even at 10-12 times, it remained a good deal. I'm forgetting one part. No. That's just why the cost was outlier. You think where the cost of the land was going? Yes. For the time being, it remains as it is today. And then our CFO will come one day telling me a lot of bad words, and I will listen to him. We'll have time for the last one. Yes, sure. Okay. This one. Hi. Hello. Dieter Freysen from Catalyst Fund Managers. Just a quick one on your investment hurdle rates. You talked about WACC+. Sorry. The investment? The basement hurdle rates, the WACC+ risk premium. Yes, yes, yes. Can you just give me an indication of the range of the risk premium? So what would be your lowest risk premium versus your highest risk premium? Yeah.
Let's say that when you're very cheap, you are super high single digit, so very close to 10%. It's towers in France with a good anchor tenant. So you put all the favorable possibilities, and you land to 995. And active in Poland, blah, blah, blah, you end well in the teen. Mid-teens? Low-teens? Mid-low-teens. More mid than low. If you want the number if you come here, I tell you the number. Excellent. I think that we have reached the end of the. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you to all of you.