Cellnex Telecom Aktie

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I'm happy to welcome you to the Annual General Shareholders' Meeting of Cellnex Telecom, both of you who are here in the room as well as those who are participating through telematica systems and those who are following the streaming. We are holding this General Shareholders' Meeting at the second call or the approval of the annual accounts of fiscal year 2025 and the rest of the proposals according to the agenda.

I would now like to give the floor to the Secretary to read the call and the provisional forum and the rest of information on the General Shareholders Meeting. Thank you.

Good morning. And following legal formalities in Madrid, 11:30, April 30, 2026, General Shareholder's Meeting has been held at 11:30 at Paseo de la Castellana #81. The meeting has been called due to a decision of the Board of Directors. And the call was published on March 27, on the website of the Spanish Securities Committee and in the newspaper El Economista, according to the Spanish legislation, given that the call is long.

And as I mentioned, it's been published back in March 27 unless any of the proposal be read according to the bylaws, and the Board of Director -- well, the Board of Directors agreed to provide telematic assistance for the participation and attendance that allow real-time participation of the meeting as well as telematic voting for all the participants in the call. You can check the use of such a mechanism. And in the website of the company, you can find the instructions for telematic systems.

Additionally, and notwithstanding and the prep -- what we mentioned previously, shareholders have been able to exercise their rights through telematic means prior to meeting and the call. It is expressly mentioned the shareholders have the right to receive all the documentation that's linked to this meeting. And it has been provided to those who have requested as well, all the information and documentation linked to the General Shareholders' Meeting has been available to all shareholders since it was called back in March 27, both in the headquarters as well as on the website of the company.

And last, I'd like to mention that shareholders who are present in this room will find in several places, QR codes. And to have information to all the -- have access to all the information of the meeting in the application. You can also see the full text of all the elements that are going to be voted today.

I would also like to mention that the President AGM has -- the notary public, [ Mr. Rodrigo Denadregi ], that has been called by the Board of Directors to generate the minutes in accordance to Article [ 2003 ] of the company -- Spanish Companies Act on assistance and according to the call of the meeting. At 10:30, we have closed the process of telematic assistance and a few -- in [indiscernible], we closed the number of participants that have -- that are assisting this meeting physically. And adding up votes of those shareholders present and those by proxy, we are able to declare open this General Shareholders' Meeting. Notwithstanding the fact that they will keep on accepting the participation cuts of shareholders until we formally create the list of assistance.

According to the latest information, a quorum at the start of the Annual General Shareholders' meeting is as follows: 324 shareholders present or represented that account for [ 892,587,710 ] shares that account for 87.13% of the equity of the company president.

Well, taking into account the data provided by the secretary, the Annual General Shareholders' Meeting is opened. In accordance with the rules and regulations of the Board at the table of the Annual General Shareholders Meeting of Cellnex Telecom are made up by the present myself, the CEO, Mr. Marco Patuano; the Secretary, Mr. Xavier Pujol; Deputy Secretary, [ Mr. Martin Lias ]; and the Notary Public, [ Mr. Antonio Leger ].

President and Secretary of the meeting -- of the General Meeting is going to be myself as President, and Xavier Pujol, who are also the members of the Board. The agenda is include my presentation and the CEO's presentation. Next, we will have a Q&A session.

For those shareholders who wish to participate, to request the clarifications on the information they might require. To the shareholders who wish to participate in the room from this moment and until the end of Mr. Patuano's presentation, please, you can go to the table for the Q&A session. In such a table, you would need to provide your information and explain the topic of your intervention. Those shareholders who would participate will have to request this -- your participation on the table. If you wish it to be fully included in the minutes, you will have to provide a text to be checked and included in the minutes.

We have no participants -- telematic assistant shareholders. Mr. Antonio, [ Mr. Don Rodrigo Antonio Regi ], the Notary Public, is here to generate -- create the minutes of the meeting. And next, I would like to give the floor to the notary.

Thank you. According to the request made by the company, Cellnex Telecom SA, in March 27, 2026, I would like to make the following comments in accordance with Article [ 203 ] of the Spanish Public Companies Act. In accordance with what's established by Spanish legislation, I would like to ask the participants, if and there's any protest on all the manifestations on the number of shareholders attending the meeting and the capital present or represented.

There has been no reserves on the comments made by the Secretary on the number of shareholders attending the meeting and the capital present admitting.

I would like to now start my presentation. 2025 is my first full year as President of Cellnex and with the CEO, we would like to share the main milestones and events that have marked the life of the company throughout the year. I would like to inform on the work of the Board of Directors and will make some general comments on the objectives and the performance of the company, Marco Patuano, will elaborate on the performance of the company in 2025.

One year ago, I addressed you first time as [indiscernible], made some commitments that I would like to say have been met and in fact, before what we expected in the Capital Markets Day in 2023. In 2025, we presented some changes in the structure of the Board. And in this meeting, we would like to share with you some of the changes that we expect you to approve. And we have -- we expect it to have the right structure to achieve our objectives.

Of course, we comply with all the legal regulations, even if sometimes they might not seem the most appropriate one and we follow the recommendations when we believe I should and we believe we have a Board that meets in the most strict international regulations, recognized by the high percentages of approval that we can -- that we have one attending to this meeting.

It is -- well, a good governance way of explaining the relationship between those who manage the company and those who trust them, which is shareholders, the shareholders. That's the criteria with which the Board works and with which we measure our performance and changes in governance models. And the most important change in the governance model that we will like to be -- to approve this year is to reelect the Board members.

It's a Board that it's renewed every year. It's not a weaker. The Board is a more responsible Board. It's more accountable towards the shareholders, the markets and itself. This model is usual practice in most international markets, and it's the one that Cellnex would approve today if you shareholders vote in favor of this proposal, which does not mean that there's going to be less stability in the structure of the Board require the opposite.

We believe there's a learning process. And when we appoint the Board member, we expect them to follow the company. And a company of the company in the long term, we believe that the mix of those companies that know the company well have gone through several life cycles. It's a great asset. The only meaning of this proposal is that each year, we are subject to the vote of shareholders and the other ones that should decide.

We have also consolidated in 2025, a model, a remuneration model based strictly on performance. After 2026, shareholders will approve previously the remuneration of the CEO and the management team linked to action plans. And we commit to publish the metrics of these incentives in the long term at the end achieve cycle in a transparent way.

Board members since 2025 also received part of remuneration in shares, reinforcing in such a way the link with the shareholders. These aren't just formal commitments, but decisions -- deliberate decisions that show the type of company that we want to become aligned with the interest of our shareholders with the new appointments that we'll propose next.

We will also ask you to approve the reelection of 8 Board members. Each of them has been assessed by the Board and the Retribution & Sustainability Committee, and the proposal of reelection is the result of such a process. Marco Patuano is chosen as executive, as CEO, and his reelection is linked to the practices of the Board.

A company and requires a management that is able to execute the objection of the company in the long term, Christian Coco, Jonathan Amouyal are elected as Board members and the [indiscernible] of edition and TCI, respectively. Their continuity reflects something that no governance document can show the trust of the 2 main institutional shareholders at Cellnex.

And the path that this Board has chosen and the project we are sharing with you today in terms of independent board members. We have Marieta del Rivero, Ana García Fau, Maite Ballester and Dominique D'Hinnin, each provides to the Board a differential profile. The process of reelection has shown that their contribution is still pertinent and needed for the phase that Cellnex is phasing. The criteria, it's not continually for its sake. But actually, the contribution of each Board member that reinforces the Board of Directors to be able to counsel and guide.

Today, we're also proposing the approval of 2 new independent directors. And I would like to explain the reasons behind those 2 proposals, Cynthia Gordon spent 3 years building and transforming telecommunication operators in very different scenarios and geography. Cellnex operating today in 10 European countries. Our ability to create value relies in how we manage that complexity. And Cynthia provides the Board something that just figures cannot capture the criteria of those who have made the difficult business decision in difficult context.

Kais Ben Hamida has been the Financial Director in very demanding markets like France and the Middle East. And he has participated in mergers and acquisitions in environments in which capital [indiscernible] competitive advantage. Cellnex is at a point in which it has to optimize its balance. Kais reinforces precisely the ability the Board needs to be able to monitor those decisions with rigor.

The Board and the proposals that we are presenting today, 8 reelections and 2 new appointments. It's a proposal that aims to provide a new structure to this Board. If approved, we will have 12 members, 12 nonexecutive, 2 that are independent and 2 women and 2 proprietary. This is the structure of a Board that's ready for our future.

And while the context does not simplify technology, acceleration, geopolitical pressure and capital markets in Europe, create a context in which consistency and transparency have become strategic assets. Companies that generate trust in difficult times have real advantage, and Cellnex wants to be one of those companies. From a business perspective and notwithstanding the fact that the CEO will elaborate on it, we have identified 2 key vectors of growth: densification and quality of the network and security and defense on the other hand.

First, the density of networks and the increased amount of quality open a space for growth that's especially relevant. The so-called indoor solutions being transportation infrastructure, sports and cultural venues as well has densified urban areas require a deployment of mutual infrastructure. So operators can offer their clients the quality of services they are demanding. And that's, in itself, the natural environment for Cellnex.

Second, and I would like to highlight this aspect, we truly believe that infrastructure -- communication infrastructures should be part of expenditure plans of Security and Defense, which will be the priority of any government. We should remember that Cellnex is already in several geographies and designated critical infrastructure. And we provide essential services to the police, the military, medical emergencies through our networks, through our PPD networks. We provide the assistance to systems such as the medical emergency system of Catalonia, and the firefighter civil protection networks in Italy and TETRA and DMR networks in Poland, Portugal and the Netherlands, just to mention a few examples.

And over 100,000 locations are a strategic asset that's been called to complete the defense and security infrastructures in Europe, which is a company that has Mr. Rutte, the Secretary General of NATO, is not in a war, but is not in peace either. And that's why we have constant conversations with governments and companies in the sector to make the most of joint development opportunities. And beyond those 2 factors, it is important to mention our backlog and sales close is the one that guarantees the transparency of our revenues. Of course, we must comply with everything included in our long-term contracts. And that discipline -- contractual discipline is the base for everything else. The combination of those 3 elements: densities, security and defense and robust backlog, place Cellnex in a privileged position to keep on growing.

Of course, I would like to mention one aspect of the performance of the company we are not happy with. And I'm talking about, of course, the price of our shares in the markets. So despite we have met the objectives, this has not been accompanied by the behavior of our share price. Today, the share price of our company is much below its intrinsic value. That's linked to our plans and the -- the plans that we are missing and that we will keep on meeting, that's why we started a buyback plan that we will continue in 2026.

While there's a difference between the share price and the intrinsic value of the company, believe me when I say that we believe this is a very important topic, and it is today our clear priority, and that's a solution we are committed to. Both capital profitability and giving that value back to our shareholders through dividend and share buyback is one of our objectives. We are meeting the objectives and the commitments made to our shareholders by reducing our debt and starting to generating free cash flow that will grow in the next few years that -- and will start being noticeable in 2026.

A cause for the behavior of this market, it's clearly the concern on the consolidation that operators might have and the consolidation of operators that might have in our company. We believe that, that pessimistic view is wrong as what can be seeing in the countries in which this consolidation has taken place. We have agreed with operators higher volumes of network density extending the life of our contracts and reinforcing those contracts. We have negotiated, understanding the needs of operators, looking for mutually beneficial agreement because consolidations are linked to improvements in the services of operators. And so in greatest investment and density. So more investment and higher quality, which is an advantage for both clients and companies. Consolidation will not be justified unless those objectives are met.

Our trust is that seeing the markets we follow and meeting our free cash flow generation and giving back to our shareholders, the view of the markets will change. We only need persistence and do what we promise.

Ladies and gentlemen, our shareholders, Europe needs a neutral infrastructure that is well governed. And Cellnex can be a reference as well as paying to our shareholders according to our commitments, and it will be able to do so not just thanks to its size, but also given the quality of its decisions, the strength of its covenants and the coherence of its purpose. This Board works to make sure that positions is not just an aspiration, but a reality that can be proved every year to our shareholders.

I would like to end by thanking the effort made by all those who work in Cellnex in the countries in which we operate, and we want to thank them for their commitment and their excellence in meeting their obligations, ahead of which we can find Mr. Marco Patuano, our CEO, who leads a very important transformation process that started since he was appointed, and that will allow us to grow in a profitable way and in a sustainable way in the future. I would also lean to thank the work of the directors in a year that has been very demanding. And I would especially like to thank the President of the 3 committees whose work is essential for the Board. And in my opinion, and for me, personally, they are of a great support. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. President, Directors.

Ladies and gentlemen, shareholders, Cellnex team, journalists, dear friends, it's a pleasure to be with you once more to explain the performance of 2025 and what we're doing. And to do so, I would like to announce my presentation on 3 blocks. In the first one, I will briefly review the exercise, the fiscal year and the results we are showing today. And second, what we're doing to ensure value generation and organic growth. Third, our industrial view, the geopolitical context and how we expect to get the most of our position as infrastructure and communication infrastructure leaders in Europe.

In 2025, [indiscernible] has been a turning point in the transformation of Cellnex. We had solid organic results with an increase of our revenue by [ 8.9% ] of EBITDA after lease, the free -- real current free cash flow was 11.5% organically. The improvement of free cash flow has confirmed the robustness of our organic growth and constant progress of the operational efficiency of the company that has allowed us to improve all our financial indicators. We have proved that growth, financial discipline, value creation for shareholders can go hand-in-hand.

For third year in a row and in each and every one of our quarters, we have met the objectives we have announced. All the indicators in the year have been aligned with the forecast that we have communicated to the markets. Results show a constant organic growth, reinforce profitability and the acceleration of our free cash flow generation. We have kept on advancing in our transformation agenda by combining operational excellence and financial strength. This has reinforced the position of Cellnex as a leading telecommunication infrastructure operator in Europe. And besides, as mentioned by the President in his intervention, we have increased and accelerated the remuneration of our shareholders compared to our original objectives.

Now by business line, telecommunication towers, which is the core -- the activity of the group, generated EUR 3.2 billion in revenues with an organic growth of 0.5% -- 5.5% pushed by contractual escalators, and the activity is linked to a PCI solid -- while the integration of the build-to-suit entities and points of presence grew by 4.5% and it actually grew in every market, which shows sustained commercial activity. Co-locations grew by 2.4%, bill-to-suit contributed with 2.2% and the churn rate was still low -- increased 0.2%. All the countries closed the year with positive data, with an average increase of our portfolio of around 2% year-on-year, even in markets that are in the process of being consolidated.

Quarterly performance have shown the sustained dynamism of the business throughout the year with a progressive acceleration of the creation of points of prices in terms of high-density indoor systems or minimal DAAs, small cells and run as a service and other network services contributed with EUR 222 million with an organic growth of 4.9%. Broadcasting provided EUR 264 million with growth of 1.9% in the year that was marked by the renewals of long-term contracts, which shows our essential presence in telecommunication and networks of the operators. Network connectivity and storage generated EUR 234 million with a growth of 16.1%, mainly due to the deployment of the Nexloop fiber project in France. Good results of the company, while linked to improvements in customer satisfaction results that go to all-time high levels with customer satisfaction score of 8.3 out of 10.

I would especially like to mention the use of artificial intelligence. It's used in our operational processes, it's already providing very positive results. Cost of staff per tower were reduced in 1.9%, maintenance cost reduced by 1.4%, and in general -- and general expenditure were reduced by 4.1%. The improvement of data and the deployment of our operational systems based on artificial intelligence improved visibility and precision and trustworthiness of our processes. And thanks to the use of artificial intelligence, we've been able to improve the efficiency of leases through the progressive purchase of land. This allowed us to control in a better manner, long-term cost, and it has helped us consolidate our subsidiary linked to the management of Celland as a key platform for value creation within the group.

As a consequence of all the previous aspects, EBITDA margin improved by 160 basis points in 2025, which shows that our company is in its way to reach ambitious profit objectives.

From a purely financial perspective, we have reduced debt, and we are in a path to bring it to under 6x EBITDA of cash flow generation, which was one of our main objectives in the Capital Markets Day of 2024 has allowed us to anticipate and increase the remuneration of our shareholders. In 2025, we announced a buyback project of up to EUR 800 million. And then in November 2025, we added an additional EUR 200 million to their program. And additionally, as mentioned yesterday, the dividend of EUR 250 million in January this year is the first part of the remuneration that will be paid out in 2026. And the second payment of EUR 250 million is expected to take place on July 15, 2026.

I would like to especially mention sustainability, although today, there is a trend to reduce or not pay enough attention to ESG indicators. We and the Board of Directors are still fully committed with the objectives we set. We have been able to make sure that 100% of the energy we use is screened. We make all of efforts to improve in all the indicators that are linked to the governance of the company and its ethical standards for treatment and to employees and suppliers and also improving our diversity policies as can be shown by our presence in main sustainability indexes, but we are aware of the fact that we can still improve. Especially, we'll have to be able to have more women in management positions.

I would like to finish this block by mentioning our model. We have been able to optimize our portfolio through a disciplined assignment of our capital and divestment aligned with our strategic plan. So as a summary, dear shareholders, the main financial and industrial indicators of the company are extremely healthy and stable.

Please now, and dear shareholders, allow me to talk about the present. Not what it was, but what we are building for the Cellnex of tomorrow to be even more robust. At the beginning of this year, the Board approved a new organizational structure. But I would like to make it very clear what that means and what it does not mean. It is not an administrative adjustment. It is a strategic decision, simplified in order to accelerate focus in order to grow.

The new structure is articulated around 4 corporate units: finance, operations, strategy and corporate affairs; and 5 units in geographic clusters: France; Alpine, Italy and Switzerland; Iberia, Spain and Portugal; and north of Europe, which is U.K., Poland, Denmark, the Netherlands and Sweden; and a new pan-European vertical solutions unit. This architecture allows to concentrate on the most important element. The strategic priorities, which have a greater impact for the group and for the shareholders.

We have invested more than EUR 43 billion in the last decade. It is the largest bet on digital infrastructure in Europe that has been carried out. Nobody in Europe has built what Cellnex has built. And now we come to the point to develop that investment, to leverage that investment. We are not growing in our perimeter, but in depth. And we now can expand and we also can generate sustained value in the long term. And the results for 2025 are testimony to that.

Europe. Europe enters the hyperconnectivity area, artificial intelligence, 5G, 6G, connected mobility, defense and resilience, all those technologies have one thing in common. They rely on a physical network, which is a real one and a resilient one. Without towers, there is no coverage. Without coverage, there is no connectivity. Without connectivity, there is no digital transformation. And without digital transformation, Europe loses competitiveness of powers.

The investment gap is estimated at around $100 billion in the next 5 to 7 years. It is not an abstract figure. That's a difference between a Europe that leads compared to Europe that follows. And Cellnex wants to be part of the solution. We are ready to accompany the next investment wave.

The consolidation of the operators is a phenomenon that we follow up very attentively. The large operators are investing more. Competition goes from price to quality. And that is good. It is good for the consumers. It is good for the industry. It is good for Europe and for Cellnex. But consolidation cannot translate into legal uncertainty. And I want to be very clear in this respect.

Our contract, what we call MSA or LLA, are commitments that have been negotiated for years, signed with transparency, with full awareness of the implications for all parties. They are not just small letter. They are the backbone of the model. Clauses like all or nothing consent rights, the 10-, 15-, 20-year deadlines. Those mechanisms are -- do not protect Cellnex. They exist because infrastructure requires certainty in order to attract long-term capital. And when capital does not have certainty, it becomes more expensive. And when it becomes more expensive, Europe invests less, and nobody wins.

What has happened in Spain and the U.K. shows that the model works when principles are respected. In the case of MasOrange in Spain, we reached an agreement that presales value for Cellnex and contributes real flexibility to our customer, an agreement that is already generating results, exceeding the initial expectations by both parties. In the U.K., the merger of Vodafone and Three has generated a promising environment for investment. Respected contracts, new opportunities for redensification in a rural area and internal connectivity. That is the benefits. When you comply with the conditions and the requirements and you respect the contracts, everyone is benefited.

So this is an opportunity for our regulatory framework. According to GSMA recent report, more than 500 licenses will expire in Europe in the next decade. The reform of the renewal policy could release up to EUR 30 billion in additional investment capacity. This is not a technical discussion. It is a strategic opportunity that Europe cannot miss. And Cellnex wants to be an active part of this conversation, not just as a stakeholder, but as an industrial player that is able to mobilize capital, deploy infrastructure, invest and cobill together with the operators and networks at Europe needs.

We have spoken about Europe a lot. But I think that we should speak even more about Europe. We are going through moment of reconfiguration of the world or the technology. It's not just a question of companies. It has become a question of nations. The digital infrastructures, either towers, fiber, network nodes, are strategic assets at the same level as roads, ports and grids. The one who controls digital infrastructures controls the capacity to communicate, to compete and of course, to defend.

The world is organized around technological blocks. The U.S. and China are leading the race for AI, quantum computing, the new generation networks. And Europe, Europe has a talent as an industry more than anything has the values. What we need is political will and industrial structures that are able to execute at the scale of this challenge. Cellnex is one of those infrastructures.

And Europe should support the European groups like Cellnex that, apart from contributing to protecting the value that Europe represents, can compete in a global environment without losing sight of their European routes. We are the largest operator of this type of infrastructure in Europe. We're present in 10 countries with more than 100,000 towers and 180,000 presence points. We are connected to all the relevant operators in the continent and with a neutral and independent model of operation, without conflicts of interest at the service of every customers alike.

This model is not just a competitive advantage. It is a contribution to European digital sovereignty because when infrastructure is in the hands of an independent player, you prevent dependence on just one player. You guarantee access, open access and nondiscrimination, and you reduce the systemic risk of the digital ecosystem. So this is what it means to be a neutral operator. It is not a technical concept. It is a position. We are side-by-side with competition, with openness and with European concept.

Allow me to be honest about what Europe needs. They need legal certainty, contracts have to be respected, not just as a favor, but as a structural condition to attract long-term investment. Cellnex has committed more than EUR 43 billion based on clear and stable agreements. If those agreements are questioned because of the commercial pressure, political convenience or the temptation of our unilateral renewal, that private capital for the long term will withdraw. And without that capital, Europe will not close that investment gap.

Second, regulatory framework that rewards investment. The renewal of the licenses are a very powerful tool. The same as having clear rules for the redesign of the market for operators. If operators invest more in the network, Cellnex will invest more in infrastructure. And that's a multiplying effect, which is huge. And the final benefit is for the European citizen that gets better coverage, better speed, digital services more -- which are more advanced than at a good price.

Third, new needs require new answers. Europe has connectivity challenges that are not fully solved yet. The railway corridors and the road corridors, the large facilities, energy resilience of the networks, defense and security, the connectivity for those users, the coverage of rural and remote areas that today is an equity debt that we have, and that is unacceptable. Cellnex provides infrastructure and the knowledge to solve those challenges. But we need government and European institutions to define the framework clearly and to commit the necessary resources that they recognize infrastructure companies as what we are, which is strategic partners of the European digital agenda, not just low-cost suppliers.

The model of our business has developed. Cellnex should not be perceived as an outsourcer of asset portfolios. We should be recognized as what we are, which is a technological partners of the operators, of our customers, of the governments and the European digital economy. And that involves a continuation of our investment in next-generation technologies, in network solutions for applications for AI, energy efficiency because sustainability and competitiveness do not oppose each other, they reinforce each other and also in the training of digital talent in the markets where we operate.

Ladies and gentlemen, dear shareholders, Europe needs industrial champions, not national champions who are protected by artificial borders, but European companies that are able to compete at a global scale to mobilize private capital in the long term, to execute with excellence that -- and that's what European citizens deserve. Cellnex aspires to be one of those players. We have the assets, we have the experience, we have the team and we have the ambition.

What we request from Europe and from its governments, institutions and investors is that they trust in our model, that they respect the agreements and that they bet and promote investments. And what we committed to do was to keep back what we have always offered: quality infrastructure, disciplined management, sustainable growth return for investors and value creation in the long term.

I would like to close with my gratitude. I would like to thank you, dear shareholders, for your trust and your support; to the Board for the commitment and the work; and to all the Cellnex professionals in 10 countries whose daily work makes it possible everything that I'm telling you today. Analysts, investors, journalists, regulators, national governments, European organizations, thank you very much. Thank you for this permanent dialogue. We continue to build together. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Marco. Now before we start the Q&A session in accordance with the good governance call for listed companies, I'm going to inform you about the degree of follow-up of the recommendations of the Stock and Exchange Commission recommendations.

As it is encompassed in the report on corporate governance for the year 2025, Cellnex complies with almost all the recommendations of this ethics code. There's only one, recommendation 48, that we do not fulfill. And excluding all the other recommendations that were not applicable to the company in 2025. Among those, because we -- the company was not controlled by another institution, not having exercised any shareholders the right to supplement the agenda, not having premiums for attendance to the AGM and not having no many directors.

And the only recommendation that we do not fulfill, which is recommendation 48, establishes that the high capitalization companies have appointments and separate appointments and remuneration committees. Regarding that, I would say that the sustainability appointment and remuneration committee is just one because we didn't consider it necessary to have separate ones because the current committee is able to carry out both aspects in a unified way.

I turn the floor over now to the Secretary, who is going to read the data about the quorum and attendance.

Thank you very much. The final data regarding attendance are the following: 76 present shareholders who own 85,469,000 shares that represent 12.52% of the share capital, and 256 represented by proxy with 507,400,000 shares that represent 74.4% of the share capital. So among all, we have 332 shares -- shareholders that are holders of 562 million shares that represent 86.82% of the share capital of Cellnex. The final quorum will be published in the web page and in the minutes of this meeting in the next 4 to 5 days. We also state that the treasury stock are in the amount of 13,680,000 shares representing 1.71% of the share capital.

All as a consequence of the execution of the repurchase agreement of shares that was communicated in November 2025 with the purpose to reduce the share capital of the company through amortization of acquired shares, which will be carried out according to the capital reduction agreement that was agreed this AGM. According to the article 48 of the company's law, the treasury stock has been calculated as part of the attendance quorum for the holding of this AGM, but treasury stock have a suspension of the voting rights and also political rights. So they have not voted in this AGM.

Dear President?

In light of the data that has been appointed, we ratify that this is a validly convened AGM in its second call.

Now we open up the Q&A session, the turn of interventions according to Article 17 of bylaws. The interventions of those requesting to take the floor will be done in the order in which they are called. I request that you state whether you are acting on your own behalf or on behalf of other shareholders.

In order to facilitate the development of the meeting, once you conclude your intervention, we will answer one after the other. To all the questions, all those requests of information that cannot be answered here will be answered in the next 7 days as contemplated in the company's law.

So we have -- we can declare the Q&A session closed.

So after clarifying all the questions, we go on to the next chapter.

According to the requirements of the call and according to the instructions, we close the voting process of those remote attendees for the items in the agenda, which were open up to now, although no shareholders have connected.

Votes in favor will be considered those to all the shares that are present in person or by proxy. And those are both against or want to abstain, they will have to make it clear right now by coming to the floor so that the notary public can take note of it. And we have processed all the votes that have been received so far. Both those that were submitted remotely and those that are extracted from all the channels that have been made available.

Now, at the request of the Chairman, I will make a summary of the proposals that are submitted to consideration of this AGM, and I will show the voting results close to -- with abstentions and everything. There's shareholders that are attending in the way that I have indicated.

Item 1 of the agenda, approval of the annual accounts management report and financial information. Corresponding to the fiscal year ended 31st December 2025.

Item number 2 of the agenda, approval of the consolidated nonfinancial statement of information and sustainability information contained in the consolidated management report for the fiscal year ended 31st December 2025.

Third item of the agenda, approval of the proposal for the application of the company's profit for the fiscal year ended 31st December 2025.

Fourth item in the agenda, approval of the management of the Board of Directors for the fiscal year ended 31st December 2025.

Fifth item, approval of a share capital reduction for a maximum amount of EUR 6,250,000 through the redemption of a maximum of 25 million shares treasury stock of the company, delegation to the Board of Directors of the powers to set the other conditions of the reduction in all matters not foreseen by the General Shareholders' Meeting, including the powers to redraft Article 6 of the bylaws related to the share capital and to request the delisting of the -- and cancellation of the accounting records of shares that are redeemed.

Item number 6 of the agenda, amendment of the bylaws. 6.1, amendment of Article 5, corporate purpose the company's Articles of Association. Item number 6.2 of the agenda, amendment of Article 7, nature or forum on the shares of the company's bylaws. 6.3, amendment of Article 9, the shareholders and the corporate governance system of the company's bylaws. 6.4, the creation of Article 9 Bis, shareholders' rights of the company's bylaws. 6.5, the creation of Article 9 Ter, the capital increase and reduction of the company's bylaws. 6.6, amendment of Article 18, term of the position of Director of the company's bylaws. Item 6.7 of the agenda, amendment of Article 2020 -- Article 22, distribution of profits, provision and materialization of reserves of the company's bylaws.

Item 7 in the agenda, reelection and appointment of directors and fixing of the number of members of the Board of Directors. 7.1, reelection of Mr. Óscar Fanjul as an Independent Director. Item 7.2, reelection of Mr. Marco Emilio Angelo Patuano as Executive Director. Item 7.3 of the agenda, reelection of Ms. Concepción del Rivero Bermejo as Independent Director. 7.4 of the agenda, reelection of Ms. Ana García Fau as Independent Director. Item 7.5, reelection of Mr. Christian Coco as -- or nominee director. Item 7.6, reelection of Ms. María Teresa Ballester Fornés as Independent Director. And Item 7.7, reelection of Mr. Jonathan Amouyal as Nominee Director. Item 7.8, reelection of Mr. Dominique D'Hinnin as Independent Director. And Item 7.9, appointment of Ms. Cynthia Gordon as Independent Director. 7.10, appointment of Mr. Kais Ben Hamida as Independent Director. And 7.11, fixing the number of members of the Board of Directors that would be set at 12%.

Item 8 of the agenda, remuneration. 8.1, approval of the delivery of 64,747 shares of the company to the Chief Executive Director, Mr. Marco Patuano, as a share component of the special incentive or buyout award agreed on the occasion of the -- his incorporation into the company on the 1st of June 2023. 8.2, approval of multiyear and long-term incentive plan consisting of the delivery of shares of the company to executives and employees of the group, including the Chief Executive Officer, and the approval of the delivery of shares to the Chief Executive Officer under the aforementioned incentive plan. Item 8.3, amendment of the directors' remuneration policy.

Item 9, this is an advisory vote on the annual report on directors' remuneration for the year 2025.

On Item 10, delegation of powers to formalize, amend, interpret and execute all the resolutions adopted by the General Shareholders Meeting.

In light of the development of the vote -- regardless of the votes that have not been contemplated yet, there is a majority, which is sufficient to approve all the proposals that were submitted by the Board of Directors to the AGM. So we can declare all the items in the agenda approved.

On the other hand, regarding Item 7, which is a reelection and appointment of members of directors, all those appointments have been proposed, they have accepted through in writing for -- to take on that position. And there is no conflict or legal incompatibility to perform that task.

The result of the votes and everything will be stated in the notarial deed. According to Article 525 of the company law, in the next 5 days, we will include the information and the results of the votes and the agreements that have been -- the resolutions that have been agreed, on the web page.

We have -- the Chief -- the CEO has had the highest figure in terms of approval as among the members of the Board. So -- and he's ahead of me. So also get ready because this is not a very nice, at least in Spain. So having said that, with the approval of all the proposals that were submitted by the Board of Directors regarding both -- all the items in the agenda, we can declare the meeting adjourned, and we thank you very much for your attendance.

[Statements in English on this transcript were spoken by an interpreter present on the live call.]

Hello. Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to our First Quarter 2026 Conference Call -- Results Conference Call. Before we begin, I'd like to remind you that the presentation contains forward-looking statements, and please refer to the disclaimer included in the appendix to the slides.

So Marco Patuano, our CEO, will open with the main highlights of our results and some strategic commentary; and then our CFO, Raimon Trias, will take you through some more details on the results for this quarter. And then we'll be available to take your questions as usual.

In addition to the slides in the pack that we've just posted on the website, we've also included, as we have in the last couple of quarters, some frequently asked questions slides. And in addition, we're highlighting some IR materials in the back of the presentation that are now available on our website and that covers some of the more recurrent themes that come up in conversations with you and our investors, and we hope you find them useful.

So with that, let me hand over to Marco.

Thank you. Thank you, Maria. Good evening, everyone.

It's a pleasure to be with you again as we open Q1 2026 and reflect on what has been a strong start to the year. In Q1 '26, we continue to deliver on all fronts, confirming the resilience and predictability of our industrial model. The macro environment remains volatile, and we continue to execute our strategy with conviction, and our results speak for themselves.

Let me take you through the 5 key themes of this slide. The first is on operating and financial performance. Our business fundamentals remain very healthy, as shown by the 4.7% year-on-year growth in PoPs, demonstrating a sustained demand from our customers across the portfolio. And we had another strong quarter in terms of organic financial performance, reflecting the solid performance of all our business drivers and our ability to drive operating leverage.

So revenues, plus 4.7%, adjusted EBITDA, plus 6.4%, EBITDA after lease by 7.2% with margin expanding from 58.8% to 60.5%, led by the ongoing efficiency measures and proactive management initiatives. The recurring levered free cash flow grew by 12.2%. And on a per share basis, the increase was 18%, combining the impact on organic growth and our share buyback program. As a second point, I would like to highlight the consolidation of our free cash flow turning point. We generated EUR 118 million of free cash flow in Q1 '26, an increase of EUR 184 million versus Q1 '25. Free cash flow is no longer a forward-looking commitment. It's here, it's growing. Third point, a comment on macro and capital markets. Our revenue and cost structure remains naturally hedged against inflation, and our balance sheet is well insulated from rate volatility with ample cash and undrawn revolving credit facilities, providing funding optionality to avoid unfavorable market windows.

I will talk a little bit more about this point. The fourth point is on asset rotation. In Q1 '26, we cashed in the proceeds from the disposal of our French data center, which was EUR 373 million and from the DIV II fund participation, which was EUR 170 million. This transaction further sharpened our focus on core telecom infrastructure assets and enhance our financial flexibility. And last, the fifth, shareholder remuneration. 2026 dividends totaled EUR 500 million, 2 equal tranches. The first tranche has already been paid EUR 250 million on January 15, 2026, and the second tranche of the other EUR 250 million is going to be paid on July 15, 2026. Our share buyback program continued throughout the quarter with EUR 60 million executed in Q1 '26. As of March 31, '26, EUR 260 million out of the EUR 500 million announced on November 6 has already been completed, and the outstanding balance is on track to be completed by year-end 2026.

So I ask you kindly to move to Slide 5, where I want to take a moment to reinforce why our business is structurally resilient in the current environment. Our macro protection framework rests on 4 pillars: revenue; costs; rates; and liquidity, which offer protection in the volatile environment we are living in. On revenues, 65% of our revenues are linked to inflation and a further 35% have fixed escalators, meaning that our entire revenue base has built-in growth mechanism regardless of the inflation environment. On costs, approximately 80% of our energy consumption is directly passed through to tenants by contract. And the remaining residual exposure is hedged through forward contracts and PPAs. In practice, our energy cost base is almost entirely price protected. OpEx growth is below inflation, which drives margin expansion and reinforcing operating leverage. So net inflation exposure results to be positive. On rates, 78% of our debt is at fixed rate, providing contained exposure to rate fluctuations. Our variable debt, 22% of the total is linked to the 1-month Euribor, which has shown relatively low volatility and is further protected through pre-hedge mechanism.

Our average maturity is 4.3 years, and it gives us a balanced refinancing profile, spread over various years, avoiding any near-term concentration risk and liquidity. We entered the quarter with approximately EUR 6 billion of liquidity, EUR 3 billion in cash and a further EUR 3 billion in undrawn committed revolving credit facilities. Our 2026 maturities are fully funded, and we maintain the flexibility to tap bond markets opportunistically when market conditions are going to be considered favorable. As you may recall, in Q1 '26, we issued a dual series bonds for EUR 1.5 billion to prefund our 2026 refinancing needs, extending maturities to 5 and 10 years and securing pricing at an average of 3.4%.

This framework is not new. It has been a cornerstone of our investment case since our Capital Market Day, and it is increasingly visible in our number quarter after quarter. Let's move now to Slide 6. I want to take a moment to show you that our margin expansion story is not a recent deployment. It is a multiyear trend, and it is accelerating. On a pro forma basis, excluding Ireland, French data center, the O&M business discontinued in Spain, our EBITDA margin has expanded consistently from 82.7% in Q1 '23 to 84.7% in Q1 '26. It's 200 basis points of expansion over 3 years, driven by continued organic growth, operational transformation of our industrial platform, strict cost discipline and the inherent operating leverage of our infrastructure model.

But the EBITDA after lease picture is even more compelling. EBITDA after lease margin moved from 55.3% in Q1 '23 to 60.6% in Q1 '26, more than 530 basis points of improvement in the same time frame. This reflects not only EBITDA progress, but also the tangible results of our proactive land management program, which is structurally reducing our lease cost base over time. The trajectory of success is clear, and possibly, there is more to come. In Slide 7, I want to spend a few minutes on a topic that I know is in front of mind for many of you. So the MNO consolidation in France and specifically the SFR process.

I want to be direct. We are well positioned, well protected, and we intend to be a proactive and constructive part for the solution. Let me walk you through our exposure and the contractual protection we have in place. We operate approximately 33,000 PoPs across 27,000 sites in France. Our contracts are structured to require Cellnex consent for any changes to the MSAs, including transfer or contract splits, which means that we are a necessary party in any consolidation scenario. In terms of our exposure to the SFR-related process, out of our total SFR PoPs, approximately 12,000, a little over 40% are located in dense areas.

Of those, less than 10% are non-anchor PoPs. In rural areas, the Crozon areas represent 57% of the PoP outside dense areas. Risk is very low. RAN sharing between SFR and Bouygues is already in place in these areas and secondary contracts have already been renewed for 10 or 12 years, providing long-term visibility on that portion of the portfolio. We have performed extensive analysis of potential overlap post consolidation, and it is confirmed that estimated impact remain limited. And critically, from a structural demand perspective, France ranks 49th globally in the 4G, 5G availability according to OperSignal. Densification is needed in urban areas and the ARCEP new deal and the 5G obligation require further rollout by 2030.

This means that regardless of ownership structure, network investment must continue and Cellnex is the natural partner. On the contractual structure, you can see at the top left of the slide, our long-term MSA agreement maturing in more than 10 years with all or netting extension and also the secondary contracts were both recently renewed in 2023. As a leading provider of critical infrastructure in the French market, Cellnex will inevitably have to be part of the discussion and an enabler for a solution that is beneficial for all.

Our objective is straightforward, preserve the NPV of our contracts, secure relationship with financially healthier clients and minimize any PoP losses, while maximizing the use of committed and future densification programs. I want -- also to set the right expectation on timing. This is a complex regulatory and commercial process, and it is not likely to be solved quickly. We're talking about a multiyear journey, one that will involve regulatory review, commercial negotiation, technological realignment, careful sequencing across multiple parties. And all this will be happening whilst operations still need to deliver best-in-class communication experiences to their customers. From Cellnex perspective, that is not a source of concern. It is actually a source of comfort.

Our contracts are long term. Our protections are contractual and time works in our favor. We are in no rush, and we will not be pressured into outcomes that do not preserve the full value of our infrastructures. We are available to support our customers throughout the strategic transformation of their business, but with full visibility on the strength of our position and the conviction that we will achieve an outcome that is positive for our customers and for us. We will keep you updated as the process evolves. On Italy, there has been no change in the fundamental of our business. We recently covered the key dynamics of the market and our business in detail, including our position regarding the ongoing discussion between Iliad, Fastweb, Vodafone and TIM.

We had a fireside chat hosted by Morgan Stanley on March 31, 2026, and the full recording and supporting materials are available on our IR website. So I encourage you to refer to the session for a comprehensive view of our perspective on the Italian market. You will find a direct link to the IR materials at the end of this results presentation. So after this rush, so let me hand over to Raimon, who will walk you through the details of our Q1 2026 results.

Thank you, Marco. Good evening, everyone. I would like to start by reinforcing the very positive performance we delivered in the first quarter of '26 in terms of organic growth and cash conversion. Robust revenue growth, combined with continued focus on operational excellence is driving higher profitability, a stronger operating leverage and expanding cash flow. As you can see in the slide, the improvement is visible across every step of the waterfall. On a pro forma basis, starting with organic revenue growth, we delivered a solid 4.7% year-on-year.

Adjusted EBITDA grew by 6.4%, supported by our ongoing business transformation and increased operational efficiencies. EBITDA after lease was 7.2% higher, incorporating our proactive lease management activity. And the recurrent levered free cash flow rose by 12.2% year-on-year, supported by the disciplined implementation of our capital allocation strategy. The headline metric that reflects our focus on shareholder value creation, recurrent levered free cash flow per share grew by 18%, driven not only by operational improvement and disciplined financial management, but also by the continued execution of our share buyback program.

As usual, on Slide 10, we show you the bridge between the reported and organic pro forma revenue growth. Starting from EUR 964 million of revenues in the first quarter '25, the perimeter adjustment for Ireland, the French data centers and the O&M business line discontinued in Spain, brings us to a pro forma revenue base of EUR 941 million. From there, the combination of escalators and CPI contributing EUR 14 million, Colocation and other business adding EUR 9 million and Build-to-Suit and fiber revenues of EUR 21 million led to organic revenue growth on a like-for-like basis of 4.7%, bringing organic revenues to EUR 985 million.

A small combined FX and perimeter adjustment of EUR 1 million takes reported numbers of the first quarter of '26 revenues to EUR 984 million. The strong organic revenue performance is led by consistent PoPs growth. As you can see in the next slide, gross PoP growth was 5.4% year-on-year, and net PoP growth was 4.7%. Let me give you some further detail. In the first quarter '26, we added 1,772 gross new PoPs, comprising 962 from gross colocation and 810 from Build-to-Suit additions. Churn was contained at 885, of which Spain accounts for the majority. This gives us 1,587 net new PoPs in the quarter.

If we look at it on a country by country, France was the lead country, mainly by the solid rollout of our Build-to-Suit programs with Iliad and SFR. Italy's performance was driven by Fastweb, Vodafone and Iliad RAN sharing program, while Poland continues to deliver the execution of Build-to-Suit with Play. In Spain, program churn from the MasOrange deal was offset with an additional Build-to-Suit and organic growth in PoPs, evidence of continued demand for network densification and coverage in the Spanish market.

The sequential trend is consistent with typical seasonal pattern. First quarter is historically a softer quarter for Colocation activity with momentum building progressively through the year, as you can see in the chart at the bottom. I would like to highlight that the net PoPs in the first quarter '26 is 28% higher than the same quarter last year. The strength of our operational performance flows directly to Tower revenues, which grew organically by 5.3% above the consolidated revenue growth rate, reflecting the continued outperformance of our core business, as you can see in the Slide 12.

Starting from EUR 778 million of Tower revenues in the first quarter '25, the Ireland perimeter adjustment brings us to a pro forma base of EUR 767 million. From there, escalators and CPI contributed EUR 13 million, Colocation added EUR 10 million and Build-to-Suit generated EUR 18 million, reaching organic Tower revenue growth of 5.3%. After an FX perimeter adjustment and other of minus EUR 7 million, reported Tower revenues in the first quarter came in at EUR 801 million.

Moving to Slide 13. Let me cover our other business lines. Fiber, Connectivity and Housing Services grew 4.3% organically, adjusted for the French data center disposal and supported by the continued rollout of the Nexloop project in France. DAS, Small Cell and Broadcast Service grew 1.1% organically, adjusted for the O&M activity discontinued in Spain. Within this segment, DAS and Small Cells delivered growth of over 16% year-on-year, reflecting a strong momentum in the U.K. and other key markets. The quarter was negatively impacted by lower trading projects in the first quarter and the FX impacts from the run in Poland.

Broadcasting grew 0.2% organically. As agreed in the 2025 contract renewals, CPI indexation will start contributing from April '26. So we expect a more meaningful contribution from Broadcasting in the second quarter onwards. The next slide captures how our continued focus on operational efficiency is translating into tangible cost improvements across all key expenses lines. All metrics are on a pro forma basis, again, excluding Ireland, the French data centers and the O&M business in Spain. Our efficiency initiatives are translated in clear margin expansion, minus 5.7% in staff cost, plus 4.6% in repair and maintenance impacted in this quarter by timing effects, but we expect for the full year '26, a reduction in line with our efficiency plan proof on prior results trends.

SG&A was down 13% and leases 0.2%, enhanced by our land acquisition plan that is accelerating and the rent renegotiations and cash advances. In summary, the operational efficiency is not limited to topline growth. It runs through the full cost structure.

Moving to Slide 15. The slide shows the bridge from reported EBITDA after leases to free cash flow and all the components that shape our cash generation in the first quarter 2026. Starting from EBITDAaL of EUR 595 million after maintenance CapEx of minus EUR 20 million, working capital of EUR 37 million negative, net interest paid of EUR 122 million and tax paid of minus EUR 39 million, we arrive at a recurring level free cash flow of EUR 378 million. Deducting expansion CapEx of EUR 67 million and the Build-to-Suit CapEx of EUR 193 million, the free cash flow comes in at EUR 118 million.

As Marco mentioned, it's a turning point when compared to the same quarter last year, where free cash flow was minus EUR 66 million. The strong free cash flow generation in the first quarter '26 is driven by 3 main factors: operational performance; our efficient capital and tax structure with optimized cost of debt; and lower CapEx intensity as the Build-to-Suit cycle normalizes. Moving to the next slide. Our operational improvements are clearly flowing through to cash, and this slide puts that in perspective. On a pro forma basis, recurrent levered free cash flow grew by 12.2% to EUR 363 million from EUR 323 million in the first quarter '25.

Recurrent levered free cash flow per share increased by 18% with additional per share improvement coming from our ongoing share buyback program, which continues to reduce the share count and enhance value per share. Looking at reported free cash flow. It reached [ EUR 118 million ] in the first quarter '26 versus minus [ EUR 66 million ] in the first quarter '25, an improvement year-on-year of EUR 184 million. As explained before, this improvement is driven by solid recurrent levered free cash flow growth by lower intensity of CapEx as build-to-suit declines.

First quarter '26 confirms the positive trajectory we described at our full year results '25. The inflection in free cash flow generation is not longer a projection, it's a fact. Moving to Slide 17. Our liquidity and funding position remains robust. As of the end of the first quarter '26, we have total liquidity of approximately EUR 6 billion, comprising EUR 3 billion in cash and further EUR 3 billion in undrawn committed revolving credit facilities. Our 2026 maturities are fully funded, providing complete visibility on near-term refinancing needs. As highlighted, in the first quarter '26, we successfully issued dual series bonds for EUR 1.5 billion with maturities of 5 and 10 years at a blended pricing of 3.4%.

This was a proactive move to anticipate our 2026 refinancing requirements, extend duration and locking attractive pricing in a window of favorable market conditions. The transaction attracted a strong investor demand and further demonstrates the confidence that debt capital markets have in our credit story. Our strategy when issuing bonds allow us to preserve our cost of debt, while maintaining ample liquidity buffers. On gross debt composition, our EUR 20.2 billion stack is well diversified. Euro Straight Bonds represent circa EUR 12 billion, convertible bonds, circa EUR 3.5 billion and bank debt, circa EUR 3.5 billion with Swiss instruments at around EUR 1 billion. This reflects the disciplined funding strategy that underpins the free cash flow trajectory we described.

Moving to Slide 18. I would like to give you a clear picture of where we stand on shareholder remuneration, both what has been executed and what remains ahead. In 2025, we returned a total of EUR 1 billion to shareholders, comprising EUR 12 million in dividends and EUR 1 billion through our share buyback program. That was a year of strong capital returns. In 2026, we have committed to returning a minimum amount of EUR 800 million, made up of EUR 500 million in dividends and EUR 300 million in share buybacks. Looking at the execution timeline for the year, the first dividend tranche of EUR 250 million was paid in January '26 as committed.

By the end of March '26, we had already executed EUR 60 million of the buyback program committed for this year from the EUR 300 million in total. The second dividend tranche of EUR 250 million will be paid in July 2026 on July 15. The remaining EUR 240 million of our ongoing buyback program will be executed until the end of the year. We are on track. The program is being executed with discipline and precision. In summary, first quarter '26 was another quarter of strong organic performance with healthy drivers of demand across our portfolio. Operational transformation and financial discipline are driving strong margin expansion and free cash flow growth as promised. Our equity story remains intact with our leading industrial platform delivering on its premise of highly predictable and secure revenue growth and consolidating the generation of strong returns and value creation for our shareholders.

With that, let me hand over to Maria for the Q&A. Thank you so much.

Thank you, Raimon. Thank you, Marco. So we're now available to take your questions. So looking at the list, we have Ondrej from UBS to kick off the questions.

Thank you for the additional materials also that you sent around yesterday. I wanted to touch upon, obviously, France, probably as the first question. So we now have new color from the consortium given the revised and seemingly final offer, including that Bouygues committing to acquire SFR networks in densely populated areas. So I was just wondering if there is an update on the discussions from your point of view, including any kind of further detail on how you are involved in possible synergy and remedy talks of your customers? And when do you expect to be able to kind of provide an update to the market after, obviously, the deal completes?

And then second question that I had, if I may, just on the tenancy side with respect to the U.K. Obviously, you're progressing with the VodafoneThree network integration. And I was wondering from VodafoneThree's competitors who are now at a material disadvantage when it comes to the site count in the U.K., do you see kind of progress in their willingness or plans to bridge that gap? And can we expect an acceleration in tenancies based on that going forward? And is that a blueprint you think for some of the potential M&A situations in other countries in the EU?

Okay. So you should know, Ondrej, that you made Vincent, my Chief Strategy Officer, win the bet on the first question because he bet on France. So he won. On France, the situation is finally becoming way more clear and this is a net positive. So the consortium entered in an exclusivity period. They are working on what is a full offer that includes, not only a term sheet, but includes an SPA and all the terms of the SPA, which is very positive because the transaction is fairly complicated. It's complicated in the execution. So a split of such a size has never been performed before and not only in Europe, it's never been done.

It's not obvious from the regulatory standpoint, and it's not obvious in terms of remedies that have to be decided by the regulator in order to approve the deal. So to some extent, our MSA is super clear, and this is a big advantage in the discussion we are having with the consortium because the terms of this MSA are not under question. So the driving principal of the MSA that any change in the MSA has to be agreed with us is recognized and agreed by everybody. So we want to be cooperative.

We have been cooperative in U.K., we've been cooperative in Spain, and we want to be cooperative. There are a lot of ways to be cooperative. And as we -- and we said many times, the value that we have to bridge with an NPV neutral negotiation is not that big, which again is a big advantage because more or less, we all agree that on what can be the numbers we are talking about. Now timing for sitting at the table. Until when the part of the consortium, the buy side and the sell side have not agreed, there is no matter of discussion. So we stay in Barcelona, and we wait for receiving a call, which is not true that it means that we are doing nothing.

So we are working CTOs with CTOs in order to understand where are the overlaps, where we can be useful, what we assume can be the logic of an agreement. But as of today, talking about having a negotiation, there is no negotiation because there was nothing on the table. So we agreed that we stay in contact. We stay very much in contact with the buy side. By the way, we are not blocking the operations with SFR because, for example, we continue to make network development in the Crozone zone, which is something that has been agreed by SFR by Bouygues because life goes on. And so we continue to operate, which is the reason why you see that our growth in France is okay.

And it's -- again, it's an indirect indicator that the relation among the party is okay because otherwise, if you start having problems, you don't work nicely on other areas. As we told you, we will inform if there are progresses. I think that if something move, we will be proactive in letting you know. On U.K. It's very interesting. So U.K., there's a lot going on because what is happening is that Vodafone is -- with one hand, is optimizing the integration of the 2 networks. And with the other hand, they have to start working on the remedies that they received from CMA. So they have to make this double job of becoming more efficient and increasing their presence.

And this starts to put some pressure on other operators. So allow me not to enter too much in the details, but we see the other operators starting making their own analysis on how they can commercially respond or better technologically respond to the network performance increase that VodafoneThree is start to have. Again, work in progress and keep you posted.

The next question comes from Roshan Ranjit from Deutsche Bank.

I've got 2, please. Firstly, on the Colocation trend, and thanks for the details as always. I appreciate there is seasonality through the year. But coming off the strong 400 gross Colocation number in Spain last quarter, could you perhaps provide us with a bit of color around the trends for the colocations through the year, particularly in Spain, given that the MergeCo is now fully focused on its reconfiguration, post the kind of network rationalization. So how can we expect that to, I guess, pick up through the year? And when should that accelerate?

And secondly, and maybe just touching on the previous question, thanks for the detail, Marco. You mentioned that there are no negotiations currently on the table from your side, I guess. Based on what the consortium have said, they're in this exclusivity period, and we are waiting on this MOU, which should present some kind of details around the synergies. So based on what you said around the MSAs and your strength of the MSA, should we think that there could be or should be limited synergies or savings from any kind of mobile network overlap or rationalization in France as part of this deal?

Okay. I take France and I leave Colocation to Raimon, okay? So France, the short answer is I don't think so. I don't think that having a limited number of overlaps means that the synergies are small. Synergies are also coming from improving the quality of the network using assets that already exist. So the fact that they start relocating SFR sites in order to cover needs of network improvement that the 3 of them will have, if you want, is somehow a way to make synergies because alternatively, if the deal didn't happen, they had to make huge CapEx.

Decommissioning is always good, not necessarily because you save on towers, but you save on antenna, you save on energy, you save on maintenance, you save on several aspects. And as we did in Spain some time, the good way to work is to decouple what you can do operationally from what will be the financial impact on the operation. So it's not necessarily true that if you decommission 1,000 antenna, you should have a discount of 1,000x the price of antenna. So you can negotiate with the clients in several ways, which is, I think, a proactive way and intelligent way to be positively a part of this efficiency gain.

So we want to help our clients to make the efficiency happen. So please don't think that we are against. We are strongly in favor of what is going on. We think that 3 operators will invest way more than what the 4 operators were doing on a stand-alone basis. So we are strongly there. We will do everything we can in order to allow our clients to be successful in this.

On the Spanish Colocation, just to highlight first, maybe let's try to remember how Colocation was last year in Spain. If you recall, and we were always showing the graph of Spain on a quarterly basis, last year, on the first quarter '25, we had a churn coming from the MasOrange transaction that was already planned with them that we managed to then recover between the second -- third quarter and mainly fourth quarter, thanks to the entrance of Digi in terms of land sharing. And that's what brought the big increase at the end of the year. This year, we're expecting a more normalized situation in Spain in the sense that we keep on deploying the rural 5G with some Build-to-Suit. You have seen that this quarter, we have something like 30 Build-to-Suits.

We believe it's going to continue in this trend, probably increasing a bit in the second half of the year. And from the Colocation perspective, we believe it's going to be more or less recurrent the same Colocation we're having now on the upcoming quarters with not big differences. So we do not expect to have this big peak at the end of the year coming from the Digi RAN sharing.

So the next question comes from Akhil Dattani, JPMorgan.

I've got 2 as well, please, if I can. The first one was just on disposals. Marco, you talked about the 2 recent transactions that you've closed. But I'm sure you've seen there's been press speculation in regards to you potentially having restarted the Swiss sale process. So I'd love to understand whether there's any credibility to these rumors. If there are, what's initiated that change and what you can tell us around conversation and what's going on. So that's the first one.

And then the second one, just to go back to France, but maybe address the question in a slightly different way. You mentioned that so far, there's been decent conversation, and I guess you're keen to work in a collaborative way with your partners. I guess you're probably also aware from the sidelines that we've seen a surprising shift in Italy after consolidation there in regards to what's happening in INWIT. So I'd love to understand, as you look at it from the outside in, what you're thinking around the situation in INWIT, how you would compare and contrast that with your situation in France, just to give the market comfort that, that's very different and not something we should be looking at too closely.

Akhil, happy to hear you. So -- I'm sorry, on the first point on Switzerland, as you said, we are talking about press rumors and the house habit is not to discuss about press rumors. So I'm sorry not to give you more color. We always said that if there is the price, we do a deal. If there is not the price, we don't. That's it, very simple. So I would like really to elaborate on your second question because it's very intriguing. I spent last week 3 days in Rome just to meet government, to meet the regulator, to meet our client and to spend time understanding closely what's happening. My strong conviction is that we are talking about a commercial lease agreement. So the parties of a commercial agreement have a strong disagreement of the terms of their contract. That's it. There is no signal, any signal that there is any regulatory or whatsoever backdrop in this, which seems to me absolutely logic. So it is what it should be.

And I spoke with my client very intensely. We have our renewal in 2030. So it's not something that is beyond the corner. And let me say that we are talking very constructively on what we should do together because the main point in Italy of my client is to understand about spectrum renewal what is going to be the investment coming with the spectrum renewal, how to improve the permitting, how to improve the operations, blah, blah, blah and a lot of work to do. So I would say that the Italian case -- the more I see the Italian case, the more it seems to me a commercial dispute. I'm very sorry to see that the commercial dispute can end in a court. But ultimately, I think that the rule of law is the rule of law.

And it's important not only for INWIT, I would say also for Italy to show that in a large country, the rule of law has to be respected. That's it, as simple as that. I'm sorry, I'm not very much in the details of this dispute because I'm the competitor. I cannot tell you more than this. So is it possible that it creates a pandemic effect on France? Look into the interest of the party, I would make it short and say no. So I don't see any signal that tells me that this can flow into the French situation. So to make it short, no.

Okay. So now moving on to the next question from Rohit Modi at Citibank.

Some of my questions have already been answered. Just 2 questions. Firstly, sorry, back on France. As the operator recently mentioned, there's been change in structure of the deal now from asset deal to shares deal, which means the entity has been transferred, will be transferred from Altice to consortium. Does that change anything from Cellnex position in terms of there will be change of control beforehand, before there's a split of asset? So just trying to understand from Cellnex perspective, is there any change that you see?

And secondly, you touched upon WindTre and certainly, there is a clause on the WindTre contract, which you have explicitly mentioned that there could be a price renegotiation that can happen between minus 15% to plus 5%. And given you're already in discussion, like if you can give any color around where do you see that ends by 2030?

Okay. A share deal is mildly better. It's almost the same. It's mildly better for us. In an asset deal, basically, you have to decide before where the asset go and which assets are treated in which way, which makes the preliminary work way more complicated. So in a share deal, you transfer the shares and you have more time to work on how to reallocate the assets among the members of the consortium, which makes it mildly better procedurally, I would say. From the legal perspective, it doesn't change absolutely nothing.

So our contracts are the same. But if you want to split, you need our consent. So if you transfer the shares, you can make it. There is a change of control issue, but there is no problem of splitting the contract. So it's mildly easier for us to deal with a share deal than with an asset deal, but not such a big difference. So the second question was you were referring to the WindTre contract, correct?

Yes, exactly. The renewal on the WindTre contract.

Okay. The renewal is due in 2030. So we are not in a hurry, not on my side and not on Benoit Hanssen side. So we have time. The contract is pretty clear because there is a corridor in which the new price is going to be set. As always, when you make a corridor, you take the midpoint of the corridor and it becomes a reference point. But what I can tell you, it's a bit early to discuss something that should happen in 2030. From the regulatory perspective, it's absolutely neutral. It's a renewal. So it's an all or nothing renewal that has no discussion from the client, no discussion from our side. So what's a really very much -- what is very much important for us is that we serve with the maximum quality, which seems to be the case. So happy for my Italian team.

The next question comes from Abhilash at BNP.

I've got 2 hopefully quick ones, please. Firstly, just on the Colocations and one of your smaller markets, Switzerland, it was mentioned. I mean, this has historically been a market with sort of relatively limited Colocation growth and you've, I think, previously characterized this as a sort of low growth market. So just wondering what drove the stronger growth in PoPs in Q1, Colocation PoPs and if that is something that we should expect to continue?

And then secondly, just coming back to your point on the U.K., just a point of clarification, I suppose, if there are sort of more BTS opportunities, is that something that Cellnex would be able to pursue? Or is there a market share limitation on Cellnex's ability to grow more sites in the U.K.

Okay. I'll take the second first, and then I leave to Raimon for Colocation. So on BTS, no, we have no limitation in order to participate eventually to a BTS program. Then, of course, we have to better understand what are the terms, what are the -- what is going to be the process, et cetera. But no, technically speaking, we have no particular limitation. So if there is some of our clients who want to go in this direction, we, for sure, we're going to be happy to participate. U.K. is a market where we would like to invest more. It's a very good market, solid market. And I think that the market repair will make it way better than before. So Raimon, please?

On the second question, just to make sure, Abhilash, that I understood. I'm not sure if you were talking just about Switzerland or if you were talking about all the countries.

Yes, that was on Switzerland, Raimon.

So Switzerland, we have had a good first quarter in terms of Colocation, mainly a lot of PoPs coming from [ ILD ] . I would say probably we don't need to expect that significant growth in the next quarters. I would say that the next quarter is going to be more in line with what we have had in the past in Switzerland, that there is a bit of a smaller growth in the Colocations, but it remains the Build-to-Suit program that we have that will continue over the next quarters.

Okay. Now moving on to James Ratzer at New Street.

So I had 2 questions as well. The first one was about thinking about the kind of impact of satellite on your business because what we've seen recently is people like Amazon, LEO, Starlink start to sign some tower backhaul agreements with MNOs. So I was kind of wondering whether is that something you would be open to offering on your towers? And I'm kind of wondering how could that affect your business? I mean, could that actually be additional upside for Cellnex because you would then start to get an additional tenant on the tower in the form of a Starlink or an Amazon LEO dish?

And then the second question I had was just on your Broadcast business in Spain. So you're indicating that, that growth is going to reaccelerate back to inflationary levels from Q2. Could you run us through what the details of the contract renegotiation you did last year there was? How secure is that revenue stream until the kind of next renegotiation? Should that just grow in line with inflation until then?

Yes. On satellite, more than additional revenues from backhauling, which is always possible. We don't see in our countries this happening a lot. But we still have some radio links. So backhauling made using high-capacity radio links. So should it be substituted with satellite links, it's not impossible. It always depends on several conditions, not only price, but especially performance. Now the price of a radio link and the price of a satellite link for backhauling is not very different. So not very big for the time being. What we see is LEO constellation looking for ground stations. So a ground station for the LEO constellation is pretty different from the old ones.

The old ones were very big dishes because the satellite was in an orbit approximately 700 to 800 kilometers in an orbit, which is 450 to 500 kilometers. So the kind of dish used for the dialogue with satellite is completely different. The configuration is different. The density is different, et cetera. So we are talking about areas relatively bigger than what we are used to do with with a normal tower.

We're talking about sort of 2,000 to 3,000 square meters of land, multi-antenna with land control for land control and data transmission. You need a very demanding requirement for energy, for connectivity. So we are talking about very, very, very high demand of energy. So we assume that in Europe, every constellation should have a sort of 40 to 50 ground station, at least the big ones. Eutelsat uses a totally different technology. So we should not refer to Eutelsat. We are referring to the LEO.

So this is basically what we are going. And of course, it's priced consistently. We don't price the same as a normal tower. It is a big animal. We have an agreement with one constellation. There are some several elements that are under NDA. So I stop here before I say something too much. My CEO is looking to me very badly. So I stop here.

On the broadcasting, James, just to give you an idea, we have renewed 5 years contract with the nonpublic broadcasters. It's true that in June '25, licenses were renewed for a longer period. It was 15 years, and contracts are CPI-based. So it's very simple.

Marco, on the first, have you got many towers where you have 2,000 to 3,000 square meters of land spare just adjacent to the tower?

No, they don't want to be in the same piece of land as a tower because the access -- the perimeteral access to this piece of land has to be very strictly monitored. And so we have to avoid the interferences, radio interferences, electromagnetic interferences. So it's -- no, no, no. It's a totally isolated piece of land. We are happy to do. We already did 2. So this I can say. We made 3. So Simone is correct, we made 3, and we have a pipeline of doing some more.

So we've got now about Nick Lyall from Berenberg.

I hope you can hear me. I have a couple of questions. Marco, if possible. Just coming back to the U.K., you mentioned it's a solid market, way better than before on your expectations. But could you help us on how that growth in the U.K. might be split between VodafoneThree and the remedies? Are the remedies enough to keep the VodafoneThree revenue positive and growing and raising it? Or are you reliant on the other operators coming in for the U.K. to grow? Could you just tell us how the consolidation affects it?

And then secondly, on the contract renewals. There's been a lot of talk of the operators' balance sheets getting stronger. They're going to get more aggressive because of this all linked with the INWIT situation. So how are you finding the operator's approach to pricing as they renew contracts? Is there any sense the operators want more aggressive cuts to prices at renewals or things as they were before?

Okay. Good. So on U.K., I would say that it's very; different the job that VodafoneThree is doing from what the other operators are doing. VodafoneThree has 2 hot potato in the hands. One is you have to take 2 networks and you have to integrate and make in one and to understand every time you have a duplication, what is the better alternative forward looking. And I underline well forward looking because what we see is that operators before dismantling something in urban areas, they think it 3x, not only one time because then the process of building in dense urban areas is not improving in terms of permitting, in terms of time to market, et cetera.

So Vodafone has a dual need. They have the need of making the 2 networks being integrated. And then they have to expand their coverage. And in the coverage expansion, they have to consider that they have a portion of the country in which they are RAN sharing with VMO2, which adds another element of complexity because in their part of the Beacon RAN sharing, they can do basically what they want. In the other part of the RAN sharing, they have to sit and discuss and agree with VMO2.

So this is Vodafone. We are working a lot with Vodafone because, as you know, the network of Hutchison Three U.K. was heavily relying on us. And so we're working with VodafoneThree in order to design for them the best combination, the best possible combination. And what is important is that we have been able to give them a good quantity of flexibility without impacting our revenues, which has been particularly good.

Now the conversation with everything everywhere and with the VMO2 is totally different. So they have their network. They have to decide to make their decision how to expand their network. EE is totally hands-free and VMO2 has the topic of Bacon and to understand what they do in Beacon. So it's an interesting puzzle. It's fairly complex, but we are at the table with 3 of them. And it's going to be very interesting. On the operational approach, you are making a point that I think it's the big misunderstanding of the contract renewals, okay? So when an anchor contract is signed, in the anchor contract, there is a component, which is clearly, clearly a financial component. So this financial component is designed over a long period, over a 20-year time frame. So you cannot come after 10 years and say, you know my balance sheet now is okay, I want to renegotiate the price.

So think about real estate. So a part of what you are paying is a mortgage because this is what they did over a 20-year period. So can you go after 10 years and say, I'm sorry, I want to rediscuss because my balance sheet is better. No, I think that the fact that the balance sheet is better is very relevant. It's very relevant because the new Build-to-Suits are going to be designed possibly with a lower component -- with a lower financial component, with a higher industrial component, which is super good. We are 100% okay with this. But sorry, you cannot come and say that the old contracts have to be renewed because you feel better. So I'm happy for you that you feel better.

Also, Nick, we have added into the frequently asked questions part. Two documents, one where you can see all the due date of renewals of our contracts being the first one in 2030 and thereof after 2033 going forward. And we have added as well the record of the contract renewals we have had so far. And in all of them, we have managed to find a way forward that is good for the MNO, that is good for us, and we have managed to close with very good results.

Okay. Moving on to Andrew at Goldman Sachs.

I just -- there's 2 basically follow-up questions. One, just following on from Akhil's question on Switzerland. I wonder if I could just ask maybe more hypothetical question around potential deals, but more about the interest levels of private investors in towers. So a year, 2 years ago, we saw private investors storming around towers with a low cost of capital and prepared to pay a premium. And then for the last 1.5 years, we haven't really seen anything apart from a pretty low multiple deal in France.

Are you seeing a return of interest of private investors or any sign of return of interest to private investors into the space given credit backdrops, et cetera? And any sense of the cost of capital having shifted on that front? Just trying to get a sense of is there a bid out there outside of public investors who are obviously weighed down by several structural concerns at the moment?

And then secondly, one of the things that, I guess, people are trying to get to the bottom of around the U.K. and Spain is when will we see evidence that post consolidation, there's an acceleration in investment in networks and densification. I think in -- so rather than what's going on now, I think in the past, I think you suggested that we might start to see that densification evidence in 2027. What are you seeing right now that's giving you optimism that we'll start to see that acceleration in investment? And if you've got any sense of time line, that would be helpful.

Yes. I answer to your question saying that at least there is more optimism in the U.S. So if I take what is happening around SBA, Vertical Bridge, et cetera, it seems to me that at least some better sense of humor is there. So there is more -- I think that some of the big headwinds have been -- I don't know. I think my personal view, they have been overpriced in our share price. And I would say in our sector. There have been -- there are headwinds, yes, possibly, yes. It has been fairly priced. I think it has been overpriced.

Because when you see the risk premium that a sector like the towers is now facing, I think it's a bit too high. So with a lower risk premium, we should be in a different territory with our shares. And this possibly explains why starting from the U.S. where there are bigger PoPs of capital, possibly it's started from there. Sorry, it's an indirect answer.

On U.K., Spain, my base case remain 2027, not because I'm not working. Believe me that my team is working every single day in order to let it happen before. But if you ask me a realistic vision, a realistic vision is that I prefer to keep it as a 2027 event with a potential good surprise if it happens before. But it remains for me a 2027 acceleration.

So now David Wright from Bank of America.

Hopefully, you can hear me. I'll make it nice and brief. I guess it's kind of an opposite to James' question about satellite coverage. Marco, do you think generally, I mean, we're seeing stand-alone 5G rollout across Europe now. Would you think there is really an indoor solution in place right now for the industry? It seems to have been very under-indexed in conversations certainly with the investor community. Do you think the European telcos have a sufficient indoor coverage solution under stand-alone 5G? Or do you think that could be another wave of potential revenue acceleration for the towers?

I think that in general terms, Europe is underinvested in 5G, so not only indoor. Take a car, make a road trip in several countries, U.K., France, Germany, and you have -- and you discover how many times you are without 5G. So indoor is, for sure, an issue, but it's not only the indoor. So I think that people start to consider good 5G coverage as something absolutely needed. So you see that at least it happens to me, I'm always annoyed when I'm traveling by train in between Barcelona and Madrid and my phone is not working properly.

So this is why, by the way, we decided to make the so-called Vertical Solution business unit because you need specialization, you need capital, you need know-how, you need a lot of things. So short, 5G is not enough macro and micro. On macro, I think that the investment is so big that operators need to have some, I would say, some tailwind that can come from spectrum renewal. It can come from in-market consolidation. It can come just from price uplift, we start seeing some price uplift. Please consider that the GSMA, not Marco, the GSMA said that they think that Europe should make not less than EUR 100 billion of 5G investments in the coming 5 to 7 years. So this is a big number.

And second, what we call special coverage, special coverage, which includes indoor, includes transportation routes. It includes mega concentration places like football stadium, arena, railway station, airports, et cetera. We have to work on all of this. And there is a lot of work coming and a lot of work for my -- Gianluca, the Head of Vertical Solutions.

So now it's time for the last question. So Fernando Cordero from Santander.

It is related with land investments. I would like just to understand for how long do you expect the current EUR 200 million, EUR 250 million per year generic run rate could be, let's say, the standard. And in that sense, also, if you are seeing any kind of pressure on the returns on land acquisition or do you continue to have compelling returns in that product?

Thank you. Very good question, especially the second part. So how long do I expect? As of today, the percentage of our land long-term ownership, call it, property, call it, long-term prepayment is still relatively low. So we are in a sort of 15% at the end of the year, maybe less. So let's say, possibly something between 13% and 15% at the end of the year. If you ask me what is a reasonable target, it's not going to be 50%. It's going to be way less.

So if we say 25% to -- 25% to 30%, it's reasonable. So what we are missing is another 12%, 13%. So make the math and you see that the number remains pretty material. But if you want to see the other way around, the opportunity for saving is material, massive. So the increase in EBITDA after lease margin can be still good for several years in a row. Now the second part of your question is very interesting because I would say that the so-called hostile land aggregators, which are guys who have a pretty predatory attitude of buying the land in order to have unfair profit from this acquisition is reducing.

What is there is there are land aggregators, which are doing their job. So they have a cheap capital, cheap financing. They go in the market. They know that we are a good client. We are good risk. So at the end, they can invest because we are a good payer, and it makes -- so our strategy is not to enter in a match race in which we pay any number. We don't pay any number. So if a deal is convenient, we make the deal. If the deal is not convenient, we sit and we discuss. By the way, we are entering very good agreements with some land aggregators. Why? Exactly because we are a good payer. And so sometimes, they like to have a big portfolio of land where we are the tenant. We negotiate good price for 10 years, 12 years, 15 years, and we sign good agreements.

So to make a long story short, as of today, our return remains very good. Very good means levered return after tax is way double digit. It's not double digit. It's way double digit, okay? So good, cool. Until when it's like this, we will continue to be selective and to use our capital. If the condition materially change, we will review the logic, but we are pretty strict in the capital allocation.

Last point, which is important, our people from our Chief Operating Officer now is putting together 2 concepts, which is land acquisition and MNO consolidation. So don't buy the land of a tower that the day after tomorrow can be at risk. So if you see that there is a possibility of an overlap of 2 towers, think well before you buy the land because if the day after tomorrow, this tower doesn't exist any longer, then it's a bit embarrassing to make tomato cultivation.

Okay. So I think that's a wrap in terms of questions. Thank you for your attention. And if you need any other support, we're always here and look forward to speaking to you next quarter.

Thank you, everyone.

Thank you.

Okay. Good afternoon. Welcome to our full year '25 conference call. Thank you for being with us again. We have the full Executive Committee with us, Corporate Executive Committee, and we'll kick off with Marco Patuano, CEO, a brief review of results, handing over to Raimon Trias, speakers for our financial overview, and then we're all available for Q&A.

Thank you. Thank you, Maria. Good morning, everyone. It's a pleasure to be with you again as we open a new financial year and reflect on our results and our strategic progress.

So in 2025, we delivered on all our promises, and we confirm how resilient our industrial model is. In a very volatile environment, we continue to execute our strategy with conviction and clarity and delivered results that demonstrate the quality of our assets and most importantly, the predictability of our revenues and organic growth model and reaffirmed the strength of the relationship with our plus.

We successfully delivered on our 2025 guidance, and we reiterate our 2027 outlook. We have returned EUR 1 billion to shareholders through share buybacks, 1 year ahead of the plan, representing a total yield of 4.5%. We initiated dividend payments at the beginning of 2026 as committed at our Capital Market Day, and we continue on track to meet our leverage targets, reducing leverage from 6.39x in 2024 to 6.28x in 2025.

We have reached an important turning point where year after year, we will generate increasing free cash flows, giving us greater flexibility to enhance our shareholder returns, fund industrial initiatives and reach our leverage targets. In 2025, we grew organically in all fronts with new points of presence accelerating throughout the year, showing continued demand for digital infrastructure.

On a pro forma organic basis, our revenues increased by 5.8%, EBITDA by 7.1%, EBITDA after leases by 7.9% with a 1.6 percentage point increase in margin. Transformational industrial actions focused on boosting top line growth, optimizing cost and proactive lease management are unlocking the operating leverage of our business. Our recurring levered free cash flow grew by 11.5% and on a per share basis by 16.7%. And the free cash flow grew to EUR 350 million, confirming the positive momentum.

On our capital allocation strategy, we completed the disposal of the French Data Center business, allowing us to increase our focus on core telecom infrastructure assets. At the same time, we have agreed to dispose our participation in the DIV II fund for circa EUR 170 million. DIV II for memory is a participation in a European infrastructure fund underwritten in 2021 in order for us to explore minority investment opportunities in digital assets. And we successfully issued in 2026, a bond for EUR 1.5 billion in 2 tranches to anticipate funding requirements, extending maturities and securing a pricing at 3.4%.

From an organizational standpoint, we also recently announced the implementation of a more streamlined and agile leadership structure, which I will give you more color on shortly. Returning to our guidance for 2025, I would like to highlight our delivery across all the key metrics. And the fact that this guidance was set almost 5 years ago confirms the resilience and the predictability of our business. Consistent execution of our industrial plan is translating into operating results, which combined with normalizing capital intensity, underpins the trajectory of growing cash generation and sustained profitability.

As I mentioned, we announced a new organizational leadership structure in February, marking important progress in the next chapter of our industrial transformation strategy. The new model is designed to bring sharper strategic focus, deepen customer relationship, enable faster decision-making and stronger functional alignment, all essential to support continued organic growth. We combined geographic cluster with a pan-European Vertical Solutions division, strengthening execution while ensuring consistency across markets. We are entering in a chapter defined by operational focus, team empowerment and agility, ready to capture the opportunities ahead.

I would like to give you a flavor of why we created our new Vertical Solutions division. Several connectivity needs today exceeded the capacity of a traditional macro coverage and require solution very specialized by nature. Transportation, venues, city centers, public safety, defense, resilience, all of them are very different in terms of technical solution, but very similar across the geographies. We are deploying an operational model aimed to scale up every vertical connectivity solution, increase the commercial focus and ensure execution discipline and improve accountability. We are already leaders in Europe, leveraging on our centralized design capabilities and our country execution power, we want to further improve our performance.

Now I hand over to Raimon to go over the highlights of our operating and financial performance. Raimon, please.

Thank you, Marco. Good morning, everyone. I would like to start by reinforcing our very positive performance in terms of organic growth and cash conversion in the year '25. Robust revenue growth, combined with a continuous focus on operational excellence is driving higher profitability, a stronger operating leverage and expanding cash flow.

Starting with organic revenues, we delivered a solid 5.8% year-on-year. EBITDA grew by 7.1%, supported by ongoing actions to increase operational efficiency. EBITDA after leases was 7.9% higher, reflecting our proactive lease management activity and recurring levered free cash flow rose 11.5%, supported by the disciplined implementation of our capital allocation strategy. Very important, the recurring levered free cash flow per share grows by 16.7%, underscoring the incremental value we create for shareholders.

Moving to Slide 9. As usual, we show you the bridge between reported and organic pro forma revenue growth. Starting from EUR 3,941 million revenues in 2024, the perimeter adjustment for Ireland and Austria brings us to a pro forma revenue base of EUR 3,790 million. From there, the combination of escalators and CPI, colocations and build-to-suit deployments led to organic revenue growth like-for-like of 5.8%.

This strong revenue performance, as you can see in the next slide, is led by healthy PoP growth in the fourth quarter '25 and as Marco said, throughout the year. Gross colocation and build-to-suit accelerated to 3,043 in the quarter, demonstrating sustained customer demand and a strong commercial traction across the portfolio. We recorded a strong colocation in France, 220; Italy, 887; and the U.K., 128. We continue BTS deployment across most countries and overall churn was contained at 307 units. Net new PoPs have shown consistent quarter-over-quarter growth throughout the year.

Moving to Slide 11. The net PoP growth in 2025 has been 4.5%, fully absorbing a 1.2% churn influenced by the effects of 2 major consolidations in Spain and the U.K. In Spain, despite the Mas Orange network reconfiguration process underway, we recorded year-on-year growth in total PoPs. This reflects the importance of the support we provide our customers in their ongoing network deployments and how we benefit from the unlocked potential for MNOs to invest after-market consolidation.

The U.K. also posted consistent quarterly growth, driven by continued 5G deployments, amendment programs and selective new site activity, illustrating the depth of demand and ongoing investment to catch up and improve network quality across the country.

If we go to the next slide, the strength of our operational performance is again clear in this slide, which shows organic growth in Towers revenues of 5.5%, driven by contractual escalators, colocation and ongoing build-to-suit rollouts across our main markets. A reminder that these figures are adjusted for Ireland and Austria for comparability. Here, we have selected a few practical examples that show how our industrial strategy is being translated into real-world execution across different areas of the business.

First, 5G densification in Italy. Fastweb, Vodafone and Cellnex Italy have extended their strategic agreement for an additional 12 years. This enables enhanced coverage and improved service quality through the deployment of 5G, supported by over 1,000 points of presence across the country.

Second, network resilience and power autonomy. Telefonica and Cellnex Spain have signed the first agreement of its kind between a TowerCo and an operator to strengthen power assurance across more than 2,000 sites. This initiative improves network resilience and energy security following the recent blackouts in Spain. There is potential to develop more energy-related business across our portfolio, provide interesting upside to our core tower services.

And third, the new markets through nonterrestrial networks. We provide land acquisition and construction capabilities to support low earth orbit satellite initiatives. Cellnex can provide essential gateways between LEO constellations and the terrestrial fiber backbone. Together, these examples illustrate how our operational strategy is being deployed on the ground and how it is opening new avenues for growth while reinforcing our role in next-generation connectivity.

Let's move on to Slide 14. Fiber, connectivity and housing services delivered a strong 16% increase in revenues, supported by the continued rollout of the Nexloop project in France. Growth in DAS, Small Cells and RAN as a Service was driven by flagship deployments and the increasing relevance of neutral host solutions with projects delivered across venues and high-traffic locations such as [ Roig ] Arena in Valencia, La Cartuja stadium in Sevilla, PGE National Stadium in Poland, 5G rollouts in Madrid Metro in more than 40 parking facilities as well as multi-operator small cell deployments in Portugal and the renewal of long-term IoT agreements such as Securitas Direct.

Our broadcasting business remained stable with a 1.9% growth year-on-year. And importantly, we secured the renewal of our long-term contracts with the leading broadcaster in Spain.

On Slide 15, we can see that our industrial plan continues to scale and strengthened by the adoption of AI. The initiatives shown here aim to standardize processes, automate operations and reinforce asset management across the group. This collective effort is making the organization more agile, reducing operational complexity and improving our ability to respond quickly and consistently across countries. It is also visible externally.

In 2025, customer engagement reached a new high with customer satisfaction index increasing to 8.3 out of a maximum of 10, the best result of the past decade. We are on a path of coordinated transformation that is elevating efficiency, effectiveness, quality and overall service experience. This industrial platform has helped so that our efficiency initiatives are translating in clear margin expansion, as you can see in the next slide.

On a pro forma basis, we reduced cost per towers across all our key cost categories, 1.9% less in staff cost, 1.4% less in repair and maintenance, 4.9% reduction in SG&A per tower and 1.1% reduction in leases. Land management remains a key value driver for us. We deployed EUR 270 million across land acquisition CapEx and efficiency programs, generating around EUR 24 million in efficiencies, displaying how our disciplined capital allocation strategy helps offset volume and CPI-related inflationary pressures in lease cash-outs. These focused efforts have driven an increase in EBITDA margins of 300 basis points to 62.1%, up from 59.1% in 2023.

The first part of the next slide shows the bridge from reported EBITDAaL and all the components that shape our free cash flow. In addition to our operating performance, this strong recurring levered free cash flow comes from an efficient capital and tax structure, combined with the continued decline in expansion and build-to-suit CapEx, free cash flow amounted to EUR 350 million. This free cash flow acceleration represents a turning point, as you can see in the next slide.

Our operational improvements are clearly flowing down to cash. On a pro forma basis, recurring levered free cash flow grew by 11.5%, almost EUR 200 million. And on a per share basis, the increase was even stronger at 16.7%, also reflecting the share buyback program, which continues to enhance value per share.

Looking at reported figures, free cash flow reached EUR 350 million, with underlying free cash flow, excluding or before the remedies, improving by EUR 307 million year-on-year. 2025 marked an important milestone for us with the entry into a new phase of consistent and rapidly accelerating free cash flow generation that supports our deleveraging strategy, as you can see in Slide 19.

Net debt to EBITDA improved to 6.28x from 6.39x in 2024 and 6.85x in 2023, keeping us firmly on track towards our 5x to 6x target. I would like to note that the pace of deleveraging could have been faster. If we hadn't brought forward EUR 1 billion in shareholder remuneration, our leverage would have closed below the 6x. Our recent EUR 1.5 billion bond issuance that Marco mentioned before in January '26 successfully [ propounded ] most of our 2026 maturities with a strong appetite from investors on the back of a good market momentum and our strong rating outlook. We managed to extend maturities and secure an attractive 3.4% pricing.

Now let me hand back to Marco so that he share our guidance '26 and '27.

Thank you, Raimon. I would like to close our presentation with the message of confidence. The strength of our business and underlying sector drivers, the continued execution of our strategy and the power of our customer relationship give us the confidence to firmly reiterate our guidance for 2027 and share our outlook for 2026.

Let me highlight that our old outlook has been adjusted to reflect 3 elements: the change of perimeter following the data center disposal, the discontinuation of our operation and maintenance business in Spain and the incremental financial costs associated with the share buyback. As you can see, we are very optimistic about our continued growth, profitability and cash generation.

So in summary, 2025 was a great year for us, and we're very confident going into 2026 and 2027. Our business model is intact. Drivers of network investments are healthy and customer relationships are stronger day by day. Our organization is driven with renewed leadership focused on growth, efficiency and customer excellence. Our growth trajectory and increasing free cash flow underpin our commitment to enhanced shareholder remuneration and give us further capacity to outperform our CMD distribution targets. So thank you.

Okay. So before moving to the Q&A, I'd just like to highlight that in addition to the main slides in the body of the presentation, we've added a few new slides at the end, some fact slides that cover many of the topics that you often ask us. So we really hope you find them useful. And with that, we're now available to take your questions.

So the first question that we have on the line up is from Roshan Rohit -- Ranjit at Deutsche.

I just got 3, hopefully, quite quick, please. Marco, you highlighted the Spanish revenue pick up, so kudos. I guess this is the benefit of the kind of the mergeco ready coming through now. Could you remind us how many ops and the trajectory of that ramp up through 2026, please?

Secondly, on the EBITDA pick up, a strong acceleration on the organic growth. Is this now the benefit of the rank of [indiscernible] coming in and we should expect that momentum to continue through '26, or is there an element of timing effect in there, please?

And lastly, thanks for the additional color on the backup slides. I'm quite interested in the RAN sharing slide, and you've given examples across Europe. Is it possible to get a sense of the kind of pricing premium across different markets that you attribute from RAN sharing?. Is it kind of a consistent uplift in the pricing? Or does it vary dependent upon market structure?

Yes, very good. So on your first question on Spain, I take question 1 and 3, and I leave the EBITDA to lease to Raimon. So on your first question, so Spain had -- the first phase in Spain was the redesign of the network coming from Mas Orange. So you see that at the beginning of 2025, we had a material churn in the -- in our point of presence. We started in the second part of 2025 to activate the RAN sharing agreement we have with Digi, which was a part of the deployment strategy of Digi in Spain, and we started the so-called rural project in Spain with Mas Orange.

Now for 2026, we start entering in the densification process project that we have with Mas Orange and we will continue to activate more PoPs with Digi. So 2025 was Mas Orange very much focused on reshaping the network and the activation of Digi filled the gap that was coming from some discontinuation in Mas Orange and 2026 on the contrary will be Mas Orange starting the densification project.

Your second question on RAN. The question on RAN is pricing depends very much on -- not very much, to some extent on market conditions. You should imagine something between half of a colocation price and 1/3 of the colocation price, depending on the structure of the market. Normally, they have very, very, very limited activation costs on our side. So it's a pure margin for us. because there are basically no CapEx associated to this. Yes, there are some OpEx because our engineers have to make some little adjustments, but it's pure margin.

The EBITDA perspective and Landco, as you will have seen this year, we have done up to EUR 270 million worth of initiatives, both on efficiency land acquisition across all the different countries that have allowed us to save approx EUR 24 million in terms of savings of EBITDAL. As you have seen on the guidance, this trend will continue going forward. The idea is that over the next years, since we created Celland, we have accelerated the amount that we are able to buy and we're buying more than prior years. It is true that we need to be careful not to compete with ourselves, and we need to keep certain level that normally we consider rate between EUR 250 million, EUR 300 million for the coming years to keep on achieving this level of savings going forward.

That's great. So just on the last point, Raimon. So the kind of Q4 exit EBITDA growth would be something that we can expect through '26 then?

I would say, if you take the savings that we have achieved this year, there is part of it, as you are saying, there has been a bit more of activity in the last quarter and a bit more of savings. So you have to consider that for doing the phasing for next year. But then next year, it will depend if we buy EUR 250 million, EUR 300 million, that the new savings of next year will kick in as well.

So moving on to the next question. It comes from Rohit at Citibank.

I have 3, please, as well. Firstly, on the guidance for 2027, I understand the guidance was initially given it was a bit long dated and you have a broader range. Now given you are near to 2027, we have already in start of 2026, we still have, I understand 5% on range on the revenue level, but that goes down to 20% on free cash flow level and with a business like Cellnex where you have a higher visibility. I'm just trying to understand what are the swing factors on recurring level free cash flow and free cash flow for '27 that you expect that number can move from lower end to higher end. That's the first one.

Second, again, there's a lot of noise we have seen particularly recently in Italy around renegotiation of contracts. I'm just trying to understand, Cellnex could be any kind of beneficiary if -- from -- if any, anything happens in Italy.

And lastly, if you can just remind us around the derivative position that you have taken last year, the swaps just before the buybacks. I mean, is there a kind of termination date do you have on those swaps given you do mark-to-market and you have kind of cash outflow -- potential cash outflow if you move terminate that contract.

Okay. So on 2027 guidance, yes, I remember there was a bit of skepticism in the recent past about our capacity to go to target. The more it was long term, the more the skepticism was higher. Today, I think that the level we reached in 2025 give good visibility of how the recurring level free cash flow and free cash flow are achievable. So what are the factors that made them achievable? Well, we defended and protected the revenue growth. The revenue growth despite a worse-than-expected originally expected CPI, we are maintaining a good level of growth. This is important.

And as you saw, the idea of making a new organization is in order to keep revenue growth. We are performing well in terms of efficiencies, Raimon just explored. And even more, our discipline in capital allocation was demonstrated more and more. So the range for 2027 is what we confirmed at the Capital Market Day. And the more we get closer to this day, the more we see it feasible, both in terms of recurring levered free cash flow and even more importantly, in terms of full cash flow.

So your second question was about contract renegotiation. Look, what I can tell you is that we already renegotiated several contracts. Renegotiated with Telefonica, we had no problems. We renegotiated with Vodafone, we had no problems. We renegotiated with KPN in the Netherlands, we had no problems. With Iliad in France, we had no problems. So our experience is that the renegotiation moment is a moment in which you sit with your client. The client will tell you what he likes and what he doesn't. But the core elements of our contracts have never been questioned.

So the fact that it is a long term is a long term, the fact that it's an all or nothing, is an all or nothing, and it has never been questioned until today. On top of these, talking about Cellnex, what I can tell you is that the coming renegotiation are not tomorrow. So we have the next renegotiation we have one in Italy in 2030, and then we go to 2033, 2034, 2035, 2036, 2038, 2042, 2048. So in this moment, of course, we are looking with attention what happens in the industry, but our experience as of today has not been dramatic. And the last, I leave to Raimon.

Yes. On the last topic, I'm not sure if I understood properly, but I'm going to try to answer what I understood. I think that you were asking why last year, most of the return -- all the return that we have done to shareholders have been through the share buybacks. There are various reasons. The first one, if you remember, in the Capital Markets Day, we committed to a dividend starting 2026. Why is that? You've seen the guidance that we have given. The free cash flow is between EUR 600 million and EUR 700 million.

So it allows us to pay a dividend based on the cash generation from the business. Last year, we had cash available that it was coming partially from the cash generation of the business, the EUR 300 million that we have done EUR 350 million, but it was coming also from the divestments of Austria and Ireland. And on top of that, the share price was at a moment that was very attractive. That's why we also decided to use the proceeds for doing the share buyback. I hope it was clear enough.

Sorry, it was regarding the swap, the swap contract that you entered last year, would you continue to have that contract?

No, the equity swap, it is still in place. It matures in June '26, and it was bought at EUR 32, and we are today at EUR 31.5.

Okay. So moving on to the next question. It's coming from Arnaud Camus at Bestinver.

First, I assume the disclosure may be limited, but could you provide some indication of the size of the battery resilience agreement you have signed with Telefonica in Spain? Should we assume this is a replicable model to other countries of your footprint? And two, more broadly regarding the forthcoming Cybersecurity Act. I know it may still be early, but could you share any initial visibility on the potential CapEx envelope and implementation time as you are an infrastructure provider to telecom operators? And is it already considered within your 2027 guidance?

So the battery agreement is still -- sorry, it's relatively sizable with Telefonica. We are discussing with them how to expand it more because what we agreed with them is to have modular development of this program based on the network design. Our technical teams are working strictly together. The target is to have several thousand sites covered. And it's a super interesting business model because what we do is like imagine not to be a pure infrastructure or a simplified infrastructure, but to be a service infrastructure provider. So we help to take care of the infrastructure from the bottom to the top.

Having a program that allow us to buy batteries on a pan-European basis, we can have very good prices. And even more importantly, we have very long insurance terms for the life protection of those batteries. We agree on life protection up to 15, 20 years. Is it replicable? Yes, it's very replicable. We have several other customers that are interested in this business model exactly because of what I told you. We are negotiating very good prices on very good volumes. don't underestimate the fact that securing volumes in this moment in which there is -- starts to be a certain level of shortage on this type of elements is clear.

About the Cybersecurity Act, the CSA, I was in Brussels last week talking about DNA and CSA, so the 2 regulations that are expected going forward. The answer is, yes, we are working very closely with the European community. There are still margins of nonclarity -- nonperfect clarity in what is going to be the final outcome. And to be honest, different member states have a different interpretation of the scope. Some are more strict, some are less strict. What we have in 2027, we are convinced that is full enough for what is going to be the requirement of the CSA. Then if you ask me if the CSA will be fully enforced in 2027, I'm not so optimistic.

Okay. So moving on to the next question. It comes from Fernando at Alantra.

Two quick questions from my side. First, on the expansion CapEx. I've seen it is down 6% year-on-year on a pro forma basis. So I don't know if you can elaborate a little bit on the main drivers behind this? And also, how should we think about its evolution for '26 and '27, the split between the different 3 CapEx items?

And second, on PoPs growth. So you've accelerated throughout the year. Is it reasonable to assume a similar growth profile in '26? And can you give us an indication of what share of new PoPs will be linked to RAN sharing agreements?

Okay. On expansion CapEx, so there are 2 elements. A few time ago, Raimon showed you that on DAS, Small Cells, RAN and other services, we grew almost 5%. The reality is that if you open this number between DAS and Small Cell RAN and other, you would have seen that DAS and Small Cell were growing about 8.1%, RAN about 10% and the other was growing much less. But the real focus for us today is DAS, Small Cells and RAN. So going forward, what we see -- the place we see having the CapEx is those 2 areas; DAS and Small Cells in this order, more DAS than Small Cells.

So the Small Cell take-up is still low even though there are some interesting use case in some European countries that we are monitoring very closely of Small Cells covering city center very efficiently and with a very low urbanistic impact and the other is RAN. Our RAN project in Poland is using some CapEx. So this is about the expansion CapEx. Then of course, there is a part of expansion CapEx that is linked to colocation, but its tower expansion CapEx that you know every year, we have more or less the same. About PoP growth, Raimon?

Yes. So during the year '26, you know that our growth in PoPs comes from 2 things, comes from colocations and it comes from build-to-suit. Build-to-suit will slow down a little bit in the year '26 basically because our programs of build-to-suit are reducing year-on-year as they come from the prior M&A deals. The normal colocation, we're expecting similar growth this year, not a big difference. And you were asking as well from our RAN sharing perspective. This year, the RAN sharing has mainly been in Spain with the entrance of Digi. And I would say that for next year, although you also have a bit in Italy, I would say that for next year, you have to consider that there will be similar RAN sharing coming from Spain and a bit in Italy as well. But I would just consider that from the colocation comes from Spain is what will be RAN sharing.

So moving on to the next question coming from Ondrej at UBS.

I had to step away for a moment, apologies if I'm repeating the question. Please feel free to ignore. I have 2 questions, please. One is on the news that Iliad has decided to allocate part of the contract that you were mentioning at the previous quarter that you are kind of looking at the 4,000 sites in France. So Iliad has allocated at least half of this to TDF. I was wondering, Marco, if you can again kind of explain to us your thinking about the returns on this project, why this is the second project with Iliad specifically that you are kind of turning or walking away from presumably because of the kind of IR not meeting your standards. So that would be question number one, please.

And second question related to France. We heard last week on the CMD that Christel, the CEO of Orange, was talking about again, again kind of investment remedies. And so I was wondering if this is something that is already somehow kind of taking shape in light of various positive, say, developments, for example, the European Council openly suggesting that M&A should be allowed and investment is needed, remedies are needed in that direction. So any kind of color on developing talks around that potential situation would be very helpful.

Okay. I answer Nemrod and then today with us, there is also our Chief Strategy, who is French, by the way. So I will leave him to respond Ondrej. So on Nemrod, yes, we have been -- we participated to the tender and the tender itself is an evidence that there is more need of coverage and densification. So this is -- I commented a million times in the past and then there is a tender. So the good part of the story is that densification needs are there.

We've been looking to the tender. We submitted an offer, but we submitted an offer that was in line with our capital allocation rules. So did make us not to reach the agreement with Iliad because it was out of our investment criteria and our capital allocation criteria. So we decided that if there was someone offering more, we would have stayed disciplined. So our goal is not to catch up with every investment there is in Europe. There are -- we are disciplined. We know where we create long-term value creation. And so that's it. We will focus on other projects.

Vincent, would you like to answer the second question?

Yes, of course. So yes, we are obviously very -- extremely close to our different customers. We are not directly involved, as you perfectly know, within the discussion of the consortium. But we are also, as Marco mentioned, pretty convinced that any consolidation, if it happens, will come with investment remedies not only in new coverage, but also on the resiliency of the system. So we have shown our proactiveness with all our partner there to support these remedies. And as you perfectly know, in any case, what we will procure is to protect the NPV of our contract and giving some short-term flexibility in exchange of long-term growth that will come from these remedies without any doubt. And this is what we will protect -- this will result in the protection of the NPV of our contract.

Okay. Thank you. So yes, I was with some members of the French institutional establishment and what they told me is that they consider infrastructure investment, a high priority for the country. So there's no doubt that there will be more investment coming.

Okay. So now moving on to the next question. We have Abhilash from BNP on the line.

I just had one, please. I wanted to come back to the topic of the guidance ranges and specifically around the revenues. So about EUR 100 million delta for 2026 between low and high and EUR 200 million for 2027. Just wanted to understand specifically around revenues, what is the key factor there? Is it around inflation assumptions, presumably not given it's so close. So is it mainly around colocations? Or are there any other factors? So any color you could add there around the revenue would be very helpful.

Yes. Do you want to Raimon?

In terms of the guidance, the only thing that we have adjusted, you have it in the presentation is basically the change of perimeter that is coming because of the data center disposal. Also, we have adjusted the discontinuation of the operational maintenance activities that we have in Spain. If you recall, we decided to stop this something like 18 months ago, but it had an impact during 2 years still because it took some time to discontinue the operations. And the third thing that we have adjusted into the guidance is the impact of the increased share buyback that was not considered in our numbers in the Capital Markets Day. The rest of the guidance, '27 has not changed and remains as it was before.

Apologies, if it was not clear from the way I framed the question. I was just -- maybe sort of more wondering around what is driving the variance between the low and high end of the revenue range. What are the key factors?

Yes. I think that the width of the range depends very much on somehow the future of build-to-suit programs if we are going to allocate more build-to-suit programs or not. A [ Nemrod ] project enters, we have the full capacity in our cash flow to have such a project and it contributes to your growth. The Nemrod project doesn't enter, and we rely more on colocation and the existing commitments that we have. So having -- or maintaining a certain element is absolutely normal.

And by the way, so it is also a decision of not to touch what we committed at the Capital Market Day. So if we start touching one point, then we have to make a full revision. So -- but if you ask me what can move us from the low end to the high end, I would tell you that what is going to come from colocation, RAN sharing, et cetera. More or less, we have a fairly clear picture. What are the commitments that are already taken. We know even the [ cent ] is possible that something more materialize in the coming months before -- between here and the end of 2027. Yes, and we will evaluate. We demonstrate we are disciplined. We're not going to make crazy stuff. If we do something, it's because it generates value, long-term value. So I think it's fine.

If I can add to Marco, it's important that everyone understands the predictability of the business. This year, we have achieved the guidance '25 that was given 5 years ago. So the barrier that can happen within these numbers is very small in that perspective.

Good.

Thank you both for the color. So just to clarify, so you're saying that the high end of the guidance is more sort of predicated on additional build-to-suit projects over and above what we already have, if I understand that correctly for the revenue guidance...

For going up to the higher part of the guidance, yes, there are other projects that should be won during the year to be able to get to the higher part of the guidance correctly.

Okay. So moving on. We can follow up afterwards if you still have any questions. Now moving on to the next question, comes from Fernando at Santander.

My two questions, in fact. The first one is related with a follow-up in the sense that you have been already asked about your confidence on the growth for 2026. I'm going a little bit beyond given that the build-to-suit activity is going to clearly decrease by 2027 and onwards. How confident are you of replacing the current [indiscernible] of growth coming from build-to-suit with colos.

And the second question is on active equipment. You have already seen the project in Poland. I just would like to understand at which extent you would be also, let's say, open for additional projects, and particularly, I'm thinking in Spain, just as a way to complement your current portfolio and even to, let's say, to give more visibility in the long term to your current business in Spain?

So the build-to-suit programs, as I said, 1 second ago, we are -- we have a program of committed that what has been already committed, has a sharp decline after 2026. 2027 will be materially lower than 2026. And -- so this is why we are working on analyzing future possibility, future opportunities that can appear in the market.

On your question on active equipment and especially on Spain, I would say that it's not our sweet spot. So if you ask me if is this your sweet spot? My clear answer is no. We have the project in Poland. We are performing the project in Poland, I would say, fairly okay, okay in terms of how the project is going on, what are the returns, the relation with the client, et cetera.

But what I can tell you is that contributing with a material benefit to the client we can do way more on the traditional perimeter than on the active component. Then every case is different. Today, a case in Spain is, I think, more a press rumor than a real case. So as of today, my answer is more no than yes. This is also something that is not so clear if it is a real case or a speculation. But I would say more no than yes.

My question on the PoP growth is because [indiscernible].

We can't hear very well.

Can you speak a bit louder, please, Fernando?

Can you hear me right now?

Much better.

Okay. Perfect. Now my point is the following. There is a debate that at which extent your current PoP growth in Colors is subdued by the fact that you are deploying the build-to-suit programs. And in that sense, what should be, let's say, the your, let's say, your base case in terms of ops, it is the total growth that we are seeing today or just the colors when the build-to-suit product will be trading down.

Well, the color that you see today is what we assume is going to be the rhythm of the colocation. And of course, if you see that the build-to-suit tend to reduce after 2027, we are going to push more on colocation. The point is we are looking to an important market share on new colocation. So what we are doing is maintain or eventually even increase our market share. And in order to do this, our technical team is working with proactive models in order to codesign with our clients better coverage. This is something that if you want, we can explore and explain better separately.

So moving on. Next question comes from James Ratzer at New Street.

I have 2 questions, please. So the first 1 is you're seeing some very encouraging growth in the kind of just organic colocation on your Towers. I'd be really interested just to hear more precisely where you're seeing that demand coming? Is this in kind of urban hot spots is this rural areas? Are these transport links. And you're speaking to the MNOs, where are you finding that particularly seeing this demand for organic colocation growth?

And then secondly, kind of bigger picture, Marco. Where do you see Cellnex's portfolio of assets going, let's say, over the next 3 to 5 years. I mean if you announced here this morning another small disposal I mean, how do you see yourself at some point ever going back into acquisition mode and growing the portfolio of the business? I'd just love to here a bit more conceptually how you think about the kind of strategic portfolio over the next 5 years.

Yes. Very clear, James. So on organic colocation, it's super interesting because when we go with my Chief Operating Officer and we start looking at the detailed figures, we look to our portfolio splitting between towers and rooftops and then urban, suburban, rural and deep rural. So the more you are tower in non-super dense area, the more you have opportunity for colocation, which is good common sense. If I'm in the center of Paris, adding a co-location on an existing rooftop is not difficult technically. It's difficult urbanistically. So you don't get the permit.

So colocation are most of all suburban and suburban is the big roads and transportation corridors even inside the cities because these generate traffic congestion -- data traffic, not only car traffic congestion, but also data traffic congestion.

And the rural, the rural is going to be a mix of colocation and RAN sharing. The more you go in deep rural, the more we suggest to our client to be efficient. We are making this, for example, in Switzerland. We are telling to our clients RAN share more because the industrial cost is for them, not for me, for them. The industrial cost make the investment having a better return. So the more you look at tower and the more you look at non-super dense urban area, the more you have opportunity for colocation. The more you have -- you are densifying dense urban areas, the more you have to think about more towers or eventually distributed small cell system or distributed antenna systems. I hope I made it clear, James.

The second is how do we see the portfolio medium to long term? So point number one, everything that is noncore and you are easy to understand the participation, we were a limited partner in an investment fund. Hard for me to say that this is core. We had a commitment of further EUR 50 million to be invested in the future, and we could repatriate with a nice return, our old investment. So why not to rotate this asset? I think it was a relatively easy decision. We had a very good cooperation from the GP, the general partner cooperated with us very nicely. And so we made it.

Now -- when you look at can Cellnex be on the buy side, I would say, for geographic expansion, I'm fairly categoric in saying no. I don't see Cellnex exit from markets and then reentering new markets because -- no, I don't see this that in terms of geography, I think we are pretty much okay. But if the MNO are claiming that there is too much fragmentation in the market, I would say the tower sector in some markets can say the same. In Spain, there are 4 tower players and 3 networks. In France, there are 5 tower operators. And if you count also smaller ones, you can eventually even consider it more fragmented. So those -- U.K. is the same. U.K. is pretty fragmented in terms of tower operators.

Consolidation -- in-market consolidation in tower operator can make good synergies. The easy and evident one, I can manage more portfolio, more towers with less than proportional growth of people. This is, let me say, the trivial one, the easy one. The most interesting one is that when you put 2 portfolio together, you start realizing the real overlaps between portfolios and you can start decommissioning part of the portfolio, transfer to your clients part of the benefit. And this is what is -- what make it very, very, very interesting. So this kind of consolidation is not there today because there is nothing there today. But if your question is, how do I see it medium term, I think that this fragmentation, same as the MNO saying that it's unefficient, I can say that it's not particularly efficient even in the tower sector.

Okay. So now moving to...

We have another 2 and then...

Yes. So now moving on to Graham at Jefferies.

Yes. I'll just stick to one, if that's okay. Can I just ask a bit more on the reorganization that you announced that you took at the beginning of the year. Maybe if you could help us understand more about the characteristics of that business unit as to why it suits the cross-market leadership structure and what the challenges were that you're encountering before this that the new organization is looking to resolve.

Thank you. Thank you, Graham. The reorganization was based on 2 main drivers. One is at corporate, we need to be more efficient. And to be more efficient, we need to be more focused and more slim, if you want, and then we have to decide what we do and what possibly it's not absolutely necessary. So this is why we made our organization at the headquarter level leaner. Leaner means faster and means also it makes easier to make decisions. So this is why we were reorganized the headquarter. When we were looking to the countries, we had some, let me say, some combination -- geographic combination that were a little bit hazardous.

So we had a Portugal together with Poland, instead of being together with Spain, which is honestly not very geographically natural. So we've made some adjustments because it could make available some synergies that are not to imagine enormous synergies, but there can be some synergies.

And the last and most interesting part was what we call Vertical Solutions. So Today, what happens is that if you take a large country like -- let's take 2 large countries, one is Italy and one is France. In Italy, the non TowerCo business accounts for a sort of EUR 40 million to EUR 50 million. In France, it accounts for less than EUR 5 million. Do you mean that the French market is 10x smaller than the Italian market? Or do you think that with the EUR 40 million to EUR 50 million, we covered all the opportunities we had on the Italian market? The answer is no and no.

So -- but the problem was that sometime each and every country is very specialized and very focused on the day by day and sometimes some opportunities are simply not big enough, not priority enough, not to specialize -- we are not specialized enough to make it possible. So the idea was, okay, we are -- altogether, if I take all my countries, we are the #1 in Europe, but we don't play as the #1. We play 10x as a small operator, and we want to play one time as a big guy. But in order to do this, you have first to think big. If you think small, you remain small.

So we need to think big. And in order to think big, I need to put all the volume together. And think central, act local is going to be the route. So I think that, yes, like every matrix organization, there are challenges, but it can work well. Do we have an example? Yes, Celland. It was a lot of small initiatives, each of them small. Now we have Celland and it's doing phenomenal. So let's try to capitalize on good experiences.

Okay. So now to end the call. I'll ask a question from Andrew at Goldman Sachs.

I just wanted to -- just one question, just to dive in a bit more deeply into the Spanish densification reacceleration. You've obviously seen the equivalent PoPs in Spain tick up, I think, as was mentioned in an earlier question. Could you just give us a bit more insight? Because obviously, this is a key metric for us to be thinking about whether -- as to whether consolidation is a good or bad thing for telcos. And obviously, consensus thinks it's a bad thing and you think it's a good thing.

So we're obviously all looking for evidence of densification acceleration. If that's happening now, what exactly does that look like? So what will be the equivalent PoP growth in Spain that you see in 2026 and 2027. I think -- sorry, the company average or Cellnex average is 3.7% equivalent PoP growth in the fourth quarter. What does it look like in Spain with that growth acceleration that we're seeing from densification?

You are a little bit difficult because you talk about equivalent PoP and they talk about PoP. So the concept of equivalent PoP was a concept that has been used by Cellnex some time ago in order to facilitate the exercise of saying equivalent PoP time average price equal to revenues. The world doesn't work in equivalent PoP nor in average price. So average is a bit tricky exercise because I'm eating an entire chicken, you eat 0 and we had half a chicken each. So it's not true when we see if you're hungry at the end or not.

So the growth in Spain or what happened in Spain is point number one, Mas Orange had to take 2 networks, one built at Orange standards and the other built at MASMOVIL standards, which were, believe me, very different and to create the Mas Orange network. So we had to avoid duplications. We had to make new colocations. We had to build -- or we have to build new sites, all at the new standard, which is the Mas Orange standard, which is the Orange standard. So top quality, top everything, carrier grade, top carrier grade.

So this is what happened in Spain with Mas Orange, which is first part of the year, an accelerated decommission of PoPs, some of them anchor and some of them second. And then a progressive relocation of some of those antenna, most of them anchor, okay? On top of this, we are partner of Mas Orange in their rural deployment program, rural Spain program. And in the beginning of 2026, we are completing the delivery of this program. And this is the picture with Mas Orange.

So going forward, what is going to happen? It's going to happen that they are working on improving -- further improving the quality of their network. We are making available more colocation and we are -- and we both committed that we will build for them some of the new installation that they need.

Second, part of the decommissioned sites that Mas Orange made available have been taken by Telefonica. Why? Because it was a good location. There was a space on the antenna, which was made available by eliminating one previous antenna. Telefonica considered it interesting. So this happened in the second part of 2025 and will continue progressively in 2026. Our relation with Telefonica is particularly good, as you saw with the battery program.

And so we are discussing with them if we can make available more sites with them. In their case, we are talking about more colocation than build-to-suit, but it's a very healthy relation. With Telefonica, we agreed on the activation of the RAN sharing program they have with Digi. It was -- it is a fairly big program. It started in the second part of 2025, I would say, in the last part of 2025, and it will continue in 2026. Why it took a little bit of time because we had not only to agree on a technical program, but also we had to amend our original contract in order to make available for them the RAN sharing on our network that originally speaking was not confirmed. So we made the agreement.

So this is another demonstration that when people say that every time there is to discuss about agreements, it's a fight. No, it's a discussion. It's a discussion between 2 [ adults ]. And this is going to continue. In -- to be honest, our relation with Vodafone Zegona is not one of the largest relation -- business relations we have. So the fact that there is a little bit of noise around this is not affecting us particularly. Of course, if we can support Zegona and Vodafone in their network needs more than happy. As of today, it has been relatively small. But of course, if they need, we do.

What we see more? We see more densification coming. This is something we absolutely see. We see more densification coming in Spain. And the big question mark is if Digi someday will deploy not only RAN sharing, but also some proprietary network. They did in other country. As of today, it's not in the plans, at least in the plans shared with us, but you never know. I hope I answered, Andrew.

I guess the reason why you're using equivalent PoPs was just because it has a more direct correlation with actual revenue growth where these days so much. And it's really what we're trying to ask is like, is revenue growth going to accelerate? What's the revenue growth in Spain post consolidation, post the kind of the rebalancing of 2025? That's the real question. It sounds like you're not able you're not going to -- you can't answer that today, but I guess that's what we're really looking for.

Well, what I can answer is that 2025 has been a little bit better than what we expected. So these -- so let's take the small positives.

Okay. Well, thank you, everyone. It's been a long call, very, very productive, I think. Thank you for your continued support. And as usual, the full team is available for following up if you have any additional questions. Thank you very much.

Okay. Good morning, everyone. My name is Maria Carrapato, I'm the Head of Investor Relations. And I'd like to thank you again for joining us for our third quarter '25 conference call.

I'm joined by our CEO, Marco Patuano; and our CFO, Raimon Trias, who will go through the key highlights of our results, and then we'll open the line to take your questions.

In the interest of time and clarity, I'd ask that you focus on more strategic questions for the management team and avoid repeating topics that have already been explained in previous questions. On more detailed numerical issues, I encourage you to place them to the IR team to make this call as relevant as possible for all participants. [Operator Instructions]

So, without further ado, over to you, Marco.

Thank you. It's a pleasure to be with you again this quarter to share how we continue to execute our strategy with discipline, consistency and a sharp focus on long-term value creation. While we acknowledge recent concerns around potential impacts from MNO consolidation that have affected our share price, I'd like to begin by focusing on what truly matters, the fundamentals because ultimately, it's the strength of our business and our ability to deliver sustainable performance that defines Cellnex value for both shareholders and stakeholders.

We report another period of strong operating and financial results, enabling us to reaffirm all our public targets and demonstrate the resilience of our business model. The first nine months of the year, we delivered a solid growth across all major financial metrics on an organic pro forma basis. Revenues increased by 5.7%. Adjusted EBITDA rose 6.9%. EBITDAaL grew 7.5%. These results reinforce our confidence in the business and allow us to strengthen our commitment to shareholder returns. We began returning capital ahead of schedule with EUR 800 million delivered in 2025 via share buybacks. Today, we're committing to a total of EUR 1 billion in shareholder returns through the end of 2026, representing a 5.4% yield at current share prices.

So now looking at the highlights of our results for the period. The operational demand remains robust with continued momentum in BTS and colocation. PoPs grew by 4.1%, underscoring our critical role in enabling digital connectivity across all our portfolio, including markets that have recently undergone consolidation.

Our operational efficiency and land acquisition programs are delivering tangible results, driving a 150 basis points improvement in EBITDA after lease margin, which expanded to 60.8%, up from 59.3% a year ago. We remain confident in our ability to unlock further efficiency and enhance operating leverage.

Recurring level free cash flow grew 9.5% year-to-date, reinforcing a consistent quarterly trend. Over the past 10 quarters, recurring level free cash flow has delivered a CAGR of 2.1%. And on a per share basis, a key metric for us, recurring level free cash flow has achieved a CAGR of 2.5%, reinforcing our commitment to sustained shareholder value creation. Free cash flow has turned positive and is accelerating along a clear upward trajectory, supported by lower capital intensity, positioning us firmly to meet our 2025 and 2027 targets, which we fully reiterate today.

As communicated to the market, we recently signed a put option agreement to sell our French data center business for EUR 391 million, reinforcing our focus on core telecom infrastructure and unlocking value through disciplined asset rotation.

A note on our shareholder reduction program underway following the EUR 800 million buyback executed earlier this year, this will drive clear improvement in per share metrics and continue enhancing shareholder value.

On the balance sheet, leverage is down from 6.6x to 6.4x, and we remain committed to our 5x to 6x target range. We are investment grade and fully committed to maintain that status.

I would also like to share positive news on our credit rating. Just days ago, Fitch reaffirmed our BBB- rating and raised our leverage threshold from 7.0x to 7.3x. This adjustment give us greater financial headroom. We view it as a further indefinite validation of our strong business outlook and financial discipline.

In summary, we are delivering continued operational growth, increasing operating leverage through efficiency, reducing capital intensity and accelerating free cash flow generation, positioning ourselves to capture long-term value. The outlook is positive. And as a result, we are accelerating shareholder returns whilst reinforcing strategic focus.

Let's now take a closer look at the details behind our results. In Slide 5, we illustrate the strength of our operational leverage and how it translates into profitability and cash flow growth. Over the first nine months, we've delivered consistent progress across all key metrics, underscoring the resilience of our model. Organic revenue growth was solid and combined with efficiency initiatives, we successfully converted that momentum into profitability. Both EBITDA and EBITDA after lease advanced on strong rates, reflecting not only scale but also disciplined cost and lease management. Beyond profitability, we further reinforced cash generation. And when we look at the recurrent level of free cash flow per share, the improvement is even more pronounced, highlighting our commitment to creating sustainable shareholder value. In short, these results confirm that our growth is efficient, margins are expanding and our ability to generate recurring cash is stronger than ever.

Moving to Slide 6. We're happy to announce EUR 1 billion shareholder remuneration for 2026, which will be split in EUR 500 million in dividends as previously announced at our Capital Market Day, which will grow at an annual rate of 7.5% through 2030. Payments will be made in two equal installments of EUR 250 million in January and July. EUR 500 million will be returned via share buybacks. This includes EUR 300 million already earmarked for shareholder remuneration, plus an additional EUR 200 million enabled by the sale of our French data center. The buyback program will be executed in the regulated market and will run through the end of 2026. Remaining proceeds will be used to reduce leverage, reinforcing our disciplined approach to capital allocation. This reinforced commitment to shareholder returns reflect our deep conviction in the fundamental value of our company and our focus on delivering long-term value. And yes, we should expect more on that front.

Financial look, our outlook is reiterated. Given the strength of our results and continued execution, we are reaffirming our guidance for 2025 and 2027, underscoring our confidence in delivering our business outlook and on our commitments to the market.

I will now hand over to Raimon to share some more key data on our operational and financial performance on the quarter. Raimon, to you, please.

Thank you, Marco. Good morning, everyone.

Let's move to Slide 9 and dive into the results. We have in front of us another quarter of a strong performance. As highlighted earlier by Marco, revenues grew organically by 5.7%, demonstrating solid momentum and the resilience of our business model. Adjusted EBITDA increased by 6.9%, while EBITDA after lease rose by 7.5%, reflecting a strong operational leverage. Looking at cash generation, recurring levered free cash flow reached EUR 1.3 billion, keeping us firmly on track to meet our full year targets. Free cash flow came in at EUR 187 million, reinforcing our trajectory of accelerated cash generation supported by lower CapEx intensity, mainly lower build-to-suit.

Turning to operational metrics. Execution remains strong. We added almost 3,000 new build-to-suit PoPs, expanding our footprint to meet rising demand. In parallel, we delivered above 2,000 net new colocations, underscoring our strategy of network densification and quality enhancement for our customers. Our customer ratio improved to 1.60x, up from 1.58x at the year-end '24, marking continued progress in tenancy. We continue to execute effectively on our lease management programs. As committed in the Capital Markets Day, we are increasing the focus on land initiatives. As a result, this year, land and efficiency CapEx totaled EUR 195 million compared to EUR 135 million last year, more than 40% increase. All our metrics show solid performance quarter after quarter.

As you can see in Slide 10, we continue to deliver a strong year-on-year organic growth. Such growth is driven by several key factors: CPI and escalators on the base revenues, colocation on existing sites and the rollout of new build-to-suit programs, particularly in France and Poland. To provide a clearer view of our performance during the period, we have excluded the impact from Ireland and Austria. On this slide, we present our organic revenue bridge on a pro forma basis. Excluding both countries, organic pro forma growth at the consolidated level was 5.7%, while tower revenues grew by 5.1%, underscoring the strength of our core operations.

Let's look at the data on the remaining business lines on the next slide. Starting with Fiber, connectivity & Housing Services, we delivered a strong growth of over 20% year-on-year, driven mainly by the continued rollout of the next fiber project in France. DAS, Small Cells & RAN-as-a-service growth was 0.8%. But when adjusting for the discontinuation of operation and maintenance contracts in Spain, the underlying trend was positive at 6.2%. Please remember that we decided to discontinue O&M activities due to its low profitability. Project deployment in DAS and Small Cells tends to be quite lumpy, depending on the pipeline execution phasing, but also impacted by trading activity that is less. Finally, broadcasting delivered stable growth of 1.5%, supported by ongoing renegotiation of contracts. Overall, these results confirm the robustness of our diversified portfolio with each business line contributing to consistent growth.

Moving to Slide 12. This slide reflects the continued positive evolution of our PoPs growth across all geographies, driven by a combination of colocation and build-to-suit programs. What stands out is the consistency of this trend, even in markets that have undergone consolidation processes.

Take Spain and the U.K., for example. both have experienced consolidation among MNOs, which could have created headwinds. Yet, we successfully mitigated these impacts and maintained robust growth, proving the resilience of our model, the strength of our customer relationships and our contracts. Looking at the consolidated view in the top right, the upward trajectory is clear. We have a large and growing base of PoPs across Europe, reinforcing our position as the market leader. This scale not only supports current demand, but also gives us a strong platform to capture future opportunities. In the bottom right, we show the quarter PoPs growth by country and providing the split between colocation and build-to-suit program. It is worth noting that in the third quarter, we had an important contribution of RAN-sharing PoPs from Digi in Spain.

Moving to the next slide, we provide the details on how our operational efficiency and industrial focus are driving tangible results. It all starts with the key levers, process optimization and standardization, integrated maintenance and vendor management, centralized knowledge and performance excellence and targeted land acquisition and efficiency actions. These initiatives enable automation and scalability, creating standardized and data-driven operations across all countries. We have achieved sustained reductions in maintenance costs to improve operations and efficiencies. Full digital adoption has allowed us to standardize workflows and enable real-time supervision, while centralized models have reduced complexity and improved resource utilization. The impact of these actions can be clearly seen on the right side of the slide on a per tower basis. Staff costs are down 1.7%. Repair and maintenance costs have decreased by 3.7%. SG&A is down 5.5%. And in leases, we have offset the impact of CPI as a result of the successful outcomes of our lease management and CapEx programs. Altogether, these efficiencies have contributed 180 basis points to EBITDA after lease margin, reinforcing the scalability and cost effectiveness of our operating model. In short, this is a strong example of how industrial discipline translates into measurable financial benefits and positions us for sustainable growth.

Moving to Slide 14. The first part of the slide explains the reported bridge from EBITDA after lease to free cash flow, showing all the components that shape our recurring levered free cash flow and free cash flow. This strong recurring levered free cash flow generation is the result of our solid operational performance and efficient tax and capital structure. Finally, our free cash flow was positive at EUR 187 million, supported by the strength of recurring levered free cash flow and lower capital intensity on both expansion and build-to-suit CapEx. On the bottom chart, we break down the evolution of pro forma CapEx. First, overall expansion CapEx decreased by 1.7%, reflecting disciplined investment without compromising growth. Second, looking at the mix of expansion CapEx, we see a balanced allocation. Towers remain the largest share, while efficiency CapEx initiatives have increased, reinforcing our focus on optimizing returns. Finally, build-to-suit CapEx decreased by 4.2%, reflecting progress to complete the outstanding programs supporting the free cash flow acceleration path. This disciplined deployment is driving efficiency and improving free cash flow conversion, which is a cornerstone of our strategy.

On Slide 15, we see that cash flow generation is accelerating, supported, as we mentioned, by lower capital intensity. This improvement reflects disciplined investment and a clear focus on efficiency. It also adjusts for the impact of remedies. Equally important, our share buyback program is enhancing per share metrics, as Marco mentioned. Let me remind you that during the year '25, we have executed EUR 800 million of share buybacks. The recurring level free cash flow per share has grown significantly, 13.2%, showing that we are not only generating cash, but also returning value to shareholders in a meaningful way. Together, these elements confirm that our capital allocation strategy is working. We are investing wisely, generating more cash and creating sustainable value per share.

Before I give the floor back to Marco, let's now take a look at our debt maturity profile on Slide 16. All 2025 maturities have been either repaid or refinanced. As a result, there are no remaining maturities left in the year, while we still remain with a strong cash position. It is worth noting that 78% of our debt is fixed rate. Our average cost of debt is 2.1% with an average maturity of 4.4 years. Our leverage ratio has improved from 6.6% to 6.4% and net financial debt decreased despite the execution of the share buyback by circa EUR 500 million, reflecting disciplined capital management.

Now I'll give the floor to Marco to continue with the presentation.

Thank you, Raimon. Well, in this moment, it's mandatory to tackle the topic of the MNO consolidation, so let's do it.

Let's move to Slide 18. First, I remain confident in our future. Demand for data is increasing. networks are congested and we provide a mission-critical service to operators. The need for densification driven by the rollout of 5G, the coming demand from artificial intelligence and the early pilot test of 6G are just some indications of what's ahead of us. It also benefit from positive optionality stemming from regulatory requirements as we saw in the case of the U.K. merger between Vodafone and Three with mandatory investment requirements and the continued rising in data consumption. This is only going one way and this way is up.

So the elephant in the room is MNO consolidation. This might be new to some of you. It's not definitely new to us. We successfully preempted contract renegotiation with Telefonica in 2023, extended to 2052. We recently announced two contract extension with MASMOVIL 2048, Vodafone Three 2055. More duration is more predictability, it's more visibility. Those are tangible results. It didn't happen by luck. It's a result of strategic planning by Cellnex. Overall, I'm not over concerned about MNO consolidation.

Let me share with you a few reasons why our business is resilient in the face of consolidation and why we see it as a strategic opportunity. The key reason why MNO merged is for market repair, not for site decommissioning. This push for consolidation among European mobile network operators is driven by long-standing market challenges, declining revenues, low margins, limited room for further efficiency gains, high investment needs, low return on capital.

Consolidation can help MNO to repair their markets, eliminate inefficiency, unlock potential for improvements and expansion in their margins. Remedies have generated new entrants and remedy taker. None opposition by regulator comes this way with behavioral remedies demanding continued improvement in network coverage, capacity and quality. These drive growth in the market and for the towercos in the medium term. At the same time, spectrum renewals are increasingly being tied to CapEx obligation, signaling again a meaningful shift in regulatory priority towards investment-driven outcomes. We are confident that all those opportunities will offset the potential challenges related with potential churn or growth reduction in the immediate aftermath.

Our all-or-nothing contracts offer long-term visibility and stability, but equally important is the strategic alignment that defines our trusted relationship with clients. MNO will not walk away from this agreement, not only due to the complexity and the cost of replacing a partner deeply embedded in their network evolution, but also because of the value we co-create and the absence of a viable alternative to replicate such a significant portion of their infrastructure.

MNO recognized the need to invest in network quality and coverage. In Page 19, we present you some -- a selection of some of the many public statements made by the MNOs.

Let's now move to Slide 20 to tackle the MNO consolidation in some of our key markets. In past consolidation cases, we have successfully negotiating win-win outcomes. We have consistently demonstrated the strength and enforceability of our contracts across all consolidation scenarios. Each case has affirmed our legal standing and led to successful negotiation that not only reinforced but extended our contractual terms, underscoring the respect MNO have for their validity and their strategic importance.

So we have strong legal protection. Our long-dated all or nothing closes and our consent is needed due to change of control clauses. We have a direct seat at the negotiation table. This is what has allowed us to extend contracts in recent years. We have captured incremental business, both from consolidating operators and from broader market-driven growth. Post consolidation, our MNO clients are stronger and better clients and willing to improve their networks to better compete on network quality and services. Investments are needed and Cellnex owns the key infrastructure for that. These outcomes have preserved the net present value of our assets while contributing to a healthier, more investment-ready MNO ecosystem.

While early year cash flow may be slightly lower due to flexibility we provide to MNOs in order to streamline in efficiencies, they rebound over time and ultimately surpass previous levels. And that's before accounting for additional investment in mobile networks. We have positive optionality there.

Spain and U.K. are proven success stories. We have already demonstrated our ability to thrive through consolidation. Preserved NPV of our contracts, extended MSA maturity, Spain to 2048, U.K. to 2055, strengthened client partnership and expanded business scope. For example, we recently announced new deployments with Vodafone Three in U.K., part of their EUR 11 billion investment plan to build one of the Europe's most advanced stand-alone 5G networks, aiming to reach 99.95% of the population by 2034. Other MNOs will likely respond with further investment in order to remain competitive. In Spain, market momentum continued to build. Digi has contracted an additional 3,000 PoPs through RAN-sharing on Telefonica network. And Telefonica itself has expanded its footprint with us by adding 110 new physical PoPs.

I want to move to France, Slide 21. In France, we have around 12,000 PoPs from SFR with over 80% under all or nothing contracts and annual churn rates below 1%. The earliest MSA renewal is in 2039 and secondary tenants contracts begin to expire only in 2034. With a geographic reference in rural areas, 60% of our PoPs are in rural cross zone areas with full sharing between SFR and Bouygues so already very efficient.

From the terms announced in the MNO's first offer, as expected, Bouygues will retain rural sites where SFR is an anchor tenant, ensuring continuity. These sites were part of our original portfolio and generate no incremental RAN-sharing fees. So financial impact is simply nonexistent. In this area, less than 10% of the PoPs are non-anchore, meaning almost all are protected by long-term contracts. Our technical analysis shows that these sites are critical not only for SFR, but for Bouygues, even and Orange, supporting ongoing densification efforts even amid consolidation uncertainty. From both a legal and technical standpoint, we see minimal risk of churn under any consolidation scenario. Any changes to our contracts requires our consent, positioning us as a key stakeholder in the negotiation. We expect to participate meaningfully in the value created, capturing synergies from the emergence of stronger, more resilient MNOs and benefiting from the substantial CapEx commitments that regulators will require as a condition for their merger approvals.

It's also important to know this will be a long process. MNO must first agree on terms, then navigate due diligence. They have to pass through regulatory reviews, stakeholder approvals throughout maintaining service quality, which will be paramount, and we are essential to that continuity.

Recent rumors in Italy, so another market, our approach remains the same, remain consistent. We are confident we can preserve the NPV of our contract with credible upside potential for the reason mentioned above, data consumption, network capacity, congestion, et cetera. But there are a few points that are very relevant on the potential on MNO consolidation in Italy as a market. Italy has stringent emission restrictions, making our existing sites extremely valuable. And colocation on our main competitor is limited given its high starting colocation ratio. Our sites are needed. The risk on our operation in Italy is low. Possibly, you saw this morning the last announcement on additional colocation agreement and extension with Vodafone Fastweb for further 12 years. So our thesis is demonstrated once again.

Now time to wrap up. Let me leave with a few takeaways. We continue delivering strong operating and financial performance across the board, and we remain firmly on track to achieve all our targets. Our focus on industrial excellence continues to pay off, driving increasing operating leverage and accelerating both in EBITDA after lease and free cash flow metrics.

We've also seen clear validation of our strategic partnership with customers and on the strength of our MSA contracts, which continue to demonstrate resilience amid evolving market dynamics.

Importantly, Cellnex remain an unavoidable counterparty in any consolidation scenario. Our consent is required across the board, reinforcing our central role in shaping outcomes. We view consolidation as an opportunity, a chance to deepen strategic alignment with our clients and to benefit from the growing need for diversification and quality improvement. Finally, we have reiterated all our public targets. We remain fully on track for our dividend commitment starting in January '26.

Thank you. Let's move on to Q&A. Maria, the floor is yours.

Okay. Thank you, Marco. So we'll move over to the first question. It comes from Andrew Lee, Goldman Sachs. Operator, can you see if the line is open?

Yes, the line is open.

Okay. So let's go to the next question. So the first question comes from Roshan Ranjit at Deutsche Bank.

I've got two questions, please. On the buyback, can I just get a kind of understanding of how you think about the mix when you came up with the kind of the EUR 1 billion. Obviously, last year, you put this ordinary dividend for EUR 500 million. You kind of used the proceeds from the data center sale to top up the buyback. But was there a consideration to maybe start the ordinary dividend from a higher base? And just coupled with that, can I just check that you are still guiding to the kind of EUR 10 billion cumulative cash distribution by 2030?

And secondly, on the credit rating change, I think the Fitch kind of decision came, I think, earlier than what you had perhaps thought. What are the kind of implications of that higher headroom? Because clearly, you're a whole turn below the upper ceiling there. So how should we think about the benefits of that? Is it more of the cost of funding when we come up for the refis? Anything you could say around that would be very helpful.

Thank you very much, Roshan. On the buyback, First of all, we committed to EUR 500 million dividend, and we stay to the EUR 500 million dividend. We'll walk our talks. In this moment, we -- one year ago, we said that the minimum would have been EUR 800 million. And I think that we all agree that with the share price at this level, just for being consistent, we made a share buyback at 32. With the share price at 27, we do 26, we do share buyback. It's consistency. So the idea is we want to have the dividend strongly linked to the free cash flow that we are generating. Further cash that is made available is going to be allocated depending on the market moment to share buyback extraordinary dividends. I think that we all agree that at this level the best decision is this.

On credit rating, having flexibility is always good. So we have -- first of all, what is important is that Fitch after S&P has confirmed the validity of our investment thesis. If you take the report issued by Fitch, you see that how they evaluate the risks, even the risks of M&A consolidation, they are considered moderate risks. So this is very important. For us, it's important to have flexibility. In this moment, in this very moment, the Board decided that the flexibility is capped for the rest of the year. But having the flexibility means that in any moment, we can use the flexibility.

Okay. We'll move on to the following questions. So it comes from Rohit Modi at Citi.

Just one follow-up on the leverage question that is you keep giving your leverage target 5x to 6x given you have a higher threshold. Firstly, on the timing, I think your earlier target was '25, '26, but with this shareholder return, clearly, you will be above 6x in '26. Please correct me if I'm wrong. So are you moving a bit further when you say 5x to 6x leverage target range? And then the flexibility around -- I'm just trying to understand, will there be flexibility in terms of using the flexibility on investing into organic growth, like operational efficiencies, you have been generating quite a decent return on those investments. So what kind of opportunities you see there?

And second question is just on any other disposals that you have in pipeline or that you think like the data centers that could come up in near future?

Sorry, I tried to answer.

Rohit, the first question I think was clear. The second question wasn't clear. Sorry.

Apologies. It's only around the disposals. Any other disposals that could be in pipeline apart from the French data centers that you think that you consider could be on strategic and want to dispose?

So the leverage question was in terms of the timing of the target.

The path to deleverage has been very consistent. Now the moment we decided to have -- to accelerate our shareholder remuneration this year and the increase of the shareholder remuneration for 2026 is clearly going hand-in-hand, not with the change of our target. Our target remains 5x to 6x, but we consider that even having in mind this flexibility that we were mentioning before, we aim to be between 2026 and 2027 for going to 6.0x or below 6x. So, our target remains the same. We have a prudent view on our capital structure. We want to be between 5x and 6x. And as I told -- as I said before, having some flexibility give us not flexibility in the final goal, but flexibility in the time to go, which, in any case, will remain fairly consistent in our view.

On disposals, our key principle is that we sell an asset when the value can be maximized. So, in this moment, we don't need to sell assets to maintain our commitments or to deliver what we promised to the market. So having the value maximized is what we did in Ireland is what we did in Austria, Nordics and even recently in the French data center. If you take why we had -- we took a little bit longer to sell the French data center simply because we decided to maximize the result of the disposals. So discussions in one of the specific markets still ongoing, but we are not under pressure. We have no more commitments. So if there will be something -- if there is something more, we will let you know. We stay absolutely disciplined, and we only sell when value can be maximized.

Okay. So moving to the next question from Ottavio Adorisio at Bernstein.

The first question is actually on the business as it is at the moment. Look at the results, you have seen reducing contributions from colocations and that is a big contrast with the improving mom in the PoPs. So the question is, it's just the fact that the PoPs came towards the end of the quarter. So, therefore, we should expect better contribution next quarter or just the mix because it was RAN sharing. Therefore, the economics are not as good, and therefore, that's the reasons why colocations contribution to revenues has not been great.

And this tied up to the questions on M&A. You this is not the first time we talked extensively about all the protections that you have on the contracts towards consolidations and the fact that you do work in partnership with the MNO it's just not that the fact you're protected by the contracts just because the MNO will need you. And my question is, as the MNO talks to one another, and therefore, the negotiation has been long in the making, is the fact that probably they've been halting or posing their colocation plans, and that is impacting your current performance of revenues?

Thank you, Ottavio. Well, your first question, the answer is both the topics that you mentioned. So the growth in the as we said, is coming in a certain quantity from RAN sharing in Spain. And as you know, let's make a rule of thumb. If an MSA counts one, the price of the second tenant is half of it and the price of RAN sharing is 1/4 or 1/5 of what is an MSA anchor fee. So, the answer is yes, there is both. There is a portion that is due to timing and a portion that is due to price mix.

On M&A, well, first of all, thank you because you clarified, spot on that the protection is coming on one side from the legal, but on the other side, from the intimacy we have with our clients. I was just talking a few days ago with our clients in France, and they were telling me the process, if we are able to make it, will last four to five years, a couple of years between agree on the price and getting the approval and then another couple of years for making the asset allocation among the bidders. So do you think that we can wait five years before making another colocation or another? So the answer is no. The life goes on because the clients are there and the competition is there and the quality requirement is there and the traffic growth is there.

So the answer is I think that we tend to overestimate that the world stops because there are talks about people talking about consolidation and so the entire planet stops. Those processes take here. And therefore, the fact that we work with them is super important. But then, of course, we work together. We are saying to SFR, let's slow down in urban areas, but let's continue in the rural areas because in the rural areas, everybody knows that the day of tomorrow, it will go to, who is run with them. So it's a day-by-day work. We work with them every day. We work with them constantly. It's very much on the intima.

And now moving on to [ Halima ] from Goldman Sachs.

I have two, please. Firstly, on the decision to stick to the minimum EUR 500 million dividend. Just wondered if you could take us through the thinking around this and how you look at allocating capital between the dividend and buyback?

And then secondly, could you share any update on your refinancing plans past 2025?

Yes. Okay. I take the dividend, and I leave the refinancing to Raimon.

Well, sorry, I say again what I said before. We committed to EUR 500 million growing by 7.5% starting from 2026. But we decided that 2026 could be from January 1 to December 31. And so we said, okay, let's start in January because our cash flow is very much okay, is slightly better than our original expectations. So the dividends are there. And then we have as a minimum of the EUR 300 million as a minimum. And how do we think about -- well, with the share price of EUR 26, EUR 27, it's very easy to think about because the attractiveness of the share buyback in terms of long-term value creation for the shareholders is there. So there is nothing to invent.

I hope that it will not take so long to create me the doubt of if it is still convenient or if we have to think it to extraordinary dividends. As of today, the decision is very easy.

Raimon on refinancing.

So when looking at refinancing, I would say various things. First, we have closed the quarter with EUR 1.4 billion of cash available with no maturities in the year '25 and EUR 1.7 billion of maturities in the year '26. On top of the cash, we have the undrawn facilities, EUR 3.3 billion. So in total, our liquidity is EUR 4.8 billion that covers the maturities of '26 and '27. So we have a good situation from a liquidity perspective.

We have the first maturity coming April '26, if I'm not wrong. And our idea is to go to the markets probably beginning of next year. We're looking and we are actively looking opportunities to see if it makes sense to go out this year or next year, and we will decide depending on market situation. But so far, what we are trying to look at is to gain as much duration as possible so that our debt correlates more also to the income that we have from our contracts.

So we're looking at maturities from 7 to 10 years that makes from a cost perspective, but duration perspective, more sense than the situation we have today so that we are able to increase the average maturity of 4.4 a bit longer.

So now moving on to James Ratzer from New Street Research.

I have two, please. So the first one on organic growth. What I'm interested about is when I look at your BTS programs, you have a few that have just finished. You've got a few that are coming up to expire, so kind of Iliad in Italy and France, you've maybe got Sunrise in Switzerland, a couple in Portugal. What are you seeing from those MNOs in terms of their demand for tenancy growth as the formal BTS programs complete? Do you see kind of ongoing demand beyond the completion of those BTS programs?

And then secondly, just interested in the performance you had in Italy this quarter. It looks like, in particular, kind of tower revenue growth you booked there was extremely strong. I was wondering if you can comment on that any more? And is that a kind of sustainable level of growth going forward?

Yes. I'll take the first, and I'll leave to Raimon the second. .

Well, the build-to-suit programs that we are completing now are the result. It's a sort of a forward execution of the original M&A. When we bought the portfolio, there was existing towers and new towers. So, going forward, is it going to be -- there is going to be more growth? The answer is yes. This growth is going to be all via colocation. No, it's not going to be all via colocation. But I think that the quantity of new towers that is going to be built in the future is going to be materially lower than what we built in the past.

Operators realize that if they want to be efficient, one way to be efficient is stop building towers and pay every time an anchor fee. So paying a second fee is a good way for being more efficient in their network deployment. But it's also true that some further towers are going to be needed. It's -- I'm not violating any secret. So Iliad is launching an RFI for building more towers in France from 2026 to 2035. So -- and this is basically what we say. It is the world goes on.

What I don't think is that future build-to-suit programs can be as expensive as it has been in the past. The past model was an M&A -- a copy paste on M&A of an M&A contract. Going forward, this is going to be much more industrially driven. So what's the reasonable cost of building a tower, what's the reasonable cost of maintaining a tower and what's the reasonable cost for renting a tower. This is more what we see going on.

Hope I answered. And Raimon on Italy.

Yes. So, on Italy, as you will probably have seen today, we have signed and renewed an agreement with Fastweb Vodafone, where we have today a bit more than 2,000 PoPs, and we have negotiated for an extra 1,000 PoPs to continue with their 5G development and it's a renewal for the next 12 years. This will enhance the coverage of 4G and 5G. It will cover more or less a bit over 1,000 sites. And what you have in the financials this quarter, and it will be again next quarter is a one-off part of this agreement in order to reserve those spaces that they have asked for.

So moving on to Ondrej Cabejšek at UBS.

Just I guess, 2two questions. One is a follow-up on the debate that we just ended. Marco, you mentioned the RFI that Iliad is launching. I believe last year, you actually turned down, if I'm not mistaken, a similar small build-to-suit project for them.

Sorry to interrupt to you, Ondrej, but the line isn't very good. Maybe you can try and speak closer to the phone?

Is this okay?

Maybe it was a bit slow. Can you hear us? If you could speak a little bit slower.

Is this okay?

Yes, much better.

Okay. Apologies. So I wanted to follow up on the build-to-suit. So you mentioned that Iliad is launching this RFI for a new build-to-suit program in France. I was wondering because I believe last year, you guys declined a small project from Iliad in Italy. I think one of the reasons was that basically the free cash flow profile was of paramount importance to you, so you did not want to get into a new build-to-suit program. I was wondering with the rapid decline or with the visibility on the rapid decline of build-to-suit CapEx over the next couple of years. And at the same time, obviously, I guess, your desire for going after opportunities that would spur further growth over the midterm. How are you thinking about your interest in new build-to-suit programs for Cellnex over the midterm? That's number one.

And then number two, relating to the, I guess, higher level situation in France. Obviously, you are flagging and I think very logically the fact that you are so embedded with 3 out of the 4 parties that would potentially be merging in Italy in France. I was wondering from your perspective, at which point in this negotiation process, are you expecting to be able to go out to the market and communicate some kind of framework at least for an outcome relating to the network structures or the anchor contracts rather that you have with the MNOs -- because I believe in Spain, for example, from the moment that we had the MASMOVIL Orange announcement, we had seen almost 2.5 years a lapse between that announcement and your announcement of a renegotiation with the contract there.

So I believe France is likely to be very different. But at what point -- or like have you had conversations with these companies already? And at what point or how early in the process are you confident that you can actually give assurance to the market that you are, again, in like an NPV positive situation or neutral?

Yes. First, on your first question, I correct you mildly. So when we refused to enter in a build-to-suit -- in a new build-to-suit program, was not because of CapEx restriction, but it was because it was not a good business. So we are very disciplined in looking to the returns on our capital allocation. Time ago, you were making calculating the return starting from a zero free risk rate. Now free risk weight is not zero. Cost of capital is not zero. Cost of capital is higher. And so we needed to have a good return on capital. If the return on capital is not good, it's not good. That's it.

So the fact that going forward, we will have a better cash flow does not mean that we are going to relax our requirements in terms of return on the investments. the return investment have to be accretive. If the investments are not accretive, they are not good investment. They're not good capital allocation and they prefer to allocate capital as they did now, for example, in buying shares. So this is -- it's not that since I have more cash flow, I have to use the cash flow badly or poorly.

On France, France -- sorry, of course, if there is good capital to be put at work, more than happy to do it. France, we meet with our clients almost once a month. So -- and my guys in France, I meet with them, I can't say every day, but let's say, even more frequently. The truth is that everybody knows that we have to be brought to the table early stage. But early stage means that you need to have at least a framework to talk about. In this moment, what we discuss with our client is how can we make preliminary homework. So our engineering department is making analysis, by the way, together with the MNOs to understand what is the traffic per cell, per city. So we are making a lot of homework in order to be ready the day of tomorrow that we have to allocate not the nonurban, but the urban towers, who is the natural buyer because there is not a single natural buyer. The natural buyer means that Tower A contributes more value to Orange and Tower B, more to WIG, and Tower C to Iliad, and we're going to allocate this way.

That's the work we are doing. We're not wasting our time. But it's still too preliminary for having a real allocation, a real matrix of allocation. What we all know is rural is not going to be a problem, 0.0 problem. Urban, we all know that the problem is super modest. So we are there. We are working there, Ondrej.

And moving on to the next question from Graham Hunt at Jefferies.

I've just got two questions. I think just coming back to a question earlier, just on confirmation of the total capital flexibility of EUR 10 billion out to 2030. But on that sort of following on from that, if, as you say, the ratings agencies are comfortable with your outlook and even the risk around M&A consolidation, if they're offering you more leverage headroom, is there actually potential for upside to that EUR 10 billion number? And given where the shares are today, is it -- what is it that's stopping you from sort of leaning into the buyback a little bit more, maybe not in 2026, but could you see that stepping up a bit more aggressively over the following years?

Thank you, Graham. So the EUR 10 billion, we're already including a component, which was a component of releveraging. But the releveraging we are considering is staying within the 5x to 6x okay? So let's say that we are in the ballpark of EUR 10 billion and depending how close you want to stay, 5.5x or 6x, you can move a little bit up or a little bit down, but this is the ballpark.

So is it important to have this flexibility? Yes, it's extremely important. As I said before, we don't change our long-term view. We want to be with a prudent capital structure. Now nobody see clouds at the horizons. But if clouds come all of a sudden, capital structure can't be changed one day to another. So it's much better to be prudent with good weather than discover that you have not been prudent with bad weather.

Is it impossible to be more aggressive going forward? Yes, it's always possible. I think that these are long discussions that we are making with the Board. Every time the Board, we have, as you know, a capital allocation committee inside the Board. It's, I think, one of the best committee I've been. I've been in Board since a long part of my life. It's one of the best I've seen operating in my life. And every time we have a good session and this is one of the topics of how bold we should be in terms of how prudent we should be and what is the correct mix.

Having the flexibility is having the flexibility, 5x to 6x stays 5x to 6x, but having the flexibility is always good. So I leave to the Board to make the final decision.

So now moving on to the next question from Fabio Pavan of Mediobanca.

Actually, I think there is a big debate to travel a lot these days and to meet industry leaders in the telecom space on the need to speed up 5G coverage as low latency is crucial to sustain the takeup in generative AI. And I think it's also something you were mentioning that the regulators are flagging some need for invest more in digital infra. So to me, it looks like we are concerned about MNO consolidation, which, as you pointed out, is something that may take time to be implemented. While in the midterm, maybe earlier than this, we should have an increase in demand for new services from your side. What I'm missing on this?

And the second question, which is probably related to this is market clearly is concerned and doesn't see any upside, which I do see on this low latency takeup. Do you think that this may lead as a consequence to some consolidation also in the tower space, not just in the telecom space at European level?

Thank you, Fabio. Always good in your analysis. 5G coverage in Europe is way beyond the rest of the world. Asia, they are already talking about 6G. And in the U.S., the battle is really a battle of network quality instead of being a battle of who cuts the price most. You saw that AT&T and Verizon are fiercely battling for who has the metal of the best network.

In Europe, we are still counting on the networks of the old good times, but the network of the old good times are suffering. Every time an operator installs a new network, a new 5G network unlocks enormous quantity of traffic. And this is something that is mandatory, cannot resist more. So people want to have better networks. U.K. has been a clear example. The quality of the network in U.K. is so dramatically poor that cannot stay like this. You leave -- in Italy and every time you take a high-speed train, you have a high-speed train and low-speed telecommunication network.

So it's there. We have to catch it. And we are ready to work together with our clients. I think that this is very important. So business is there. I have zero doubt. We are an essential facility. Digital is our life. Our life is digitalized, and we are the infrastructure for the digital mobile digital life. So we are an essential facility. It cannot be -- it cannot go back.

The tower consolidation, well, tower consolidation, there are two kind of tower consolidation. One is in-market tower consolidation and the other is cross-market tower consolidation. In-market tower consolidation every time is possible is good because ultimately, there are too many portfolios and some of them are overlapped. So part of the tower consolidation can turn into decommissioning of tower, which turns into synergies into efficiency, it would be good.

Now is it possible? As of today, we don't see many, many markets in which this is possible, but there are markets in which the situation is turning bizarre. Spain has 3 -- 2.5 networks and 4 tower operators is bizarre. You live in Italy and Italy is much more linear. There are 2.5 or eventually 3 networks with 2.5/3 tower operators much more linear. So this is what I think it's possible in the near future.

Okay. So moving on to Akhil Dattani at JPMorgan.

I've got two questions as well, please. Firstly, if I could just maybe ask a question on your organic growth. If we look at the last couple of quarters, on a headline basis, it looks like organic growth rates have been slowing. So last year, you reported just over 7% organic growth. But the last three quarters, each quarter, it slowed. I think this quarter, if you back it out from your year-to-date, it comes in at 5% for Q3. And I guess if we strip out the point that Raimon made about the Italian contract, maybe it's even close to 4%. So I'm just trying to understand what is going on. And I know maybe there might be some distortions in there from works in study. So maybe the slowdown is not what it looks like. So maybe you could just help us understand what's going on top line performance and how we should understand it? So that's the first question.

And then the second question is on consolidation. Marco, you've obviously given us a lot of color around why you're so confident and the protection you have in your contracts. But I guess I'd love to understand what do you think could go wrong? Because I guess if we look at the market today, that's what the market is fearing. I guess the comparison I often get from investors is the U.S., where U.S. tower companies are also very confident going into consolidation, but growth rates have slowed a lot. So what do you think -- if you think about the puts and takes, what are the areas where there might be risk? Obviously, I understand the strength in your contracts, but where could there be potential areas of slippage in growth from consolidation?

Okay. Yes, on organic growth, we should split the organic growth -- as you know, the organic growth has a component coming from PoP growth. There is a component coming from some engineering service like every company in the tower space, we adapt sites in order to co-locate antenna and PoPs and objects dishes, et cetera,. And this is something that has seasonality because you can -- there are moments of the year in which you can do more and moments of the year in which you can do less.

So if I take the colocation, the colocation, we are -- we have had more than an issue of an issue. More than -- the explanation is more in the mix of the price than in the number of the PoPs that are colocated. I mean the mix is how many build-to-suit, which are anchor clients, very, very high price, how many are secondary tenants, which are mid-price and how many are RAN sharing, which come with a lower price. So the mix -- the price mix is something that people tend to a bit underestimate.

In this moment, with the change of mix, so having less build-to-suit growth and more colocation don't have only a different impact on CapEx, but you have also a different price mix. And therefore, the impact on revenues is different from the past. In the past, a lot of the growth was coming from build-to-suits or from anchor clients, also contracts with very high price.

On consolidation, as we discussed several times, consolidation, you have to imagine consolidation as a moment event. The first part of the consolidation is a reorganization of the network. People talk about efficiency, but you have always to think. I cannot serve two customer base with a single network. So the first moment is how can I serve two customer base with two networks that have to be designed more efficiently. So this is the first part of the exercise. And the second part of the exercise is what is the quality I want to deliver to my clients.

The topic of the quality is changing very, very, very quickly. If you talk with any expert in AI-driven application, they will tell you that it's not that it will drive more data consumption, but it's a different kind of data consumption. Network has to be dense. Network has to be more capacity for uploading, et cetera. You need to design the network differently. So, yesterday, we were talking with a very good CTO of one of our clients, and he was telling us there is a topic of coverage because ubiquitous service is considered mandatory today. If you don't have the good network in your subway, you're not happy. Capacity is a big problem and accessibility is a big problem. So everything goes in the direction that going forward, more has to come. So, I'm positive.

What was breaking us breaking until today, the fact that the MNO had not enough resources to invest. That's the truth. The truth is that they did not -- they could not invest enough because they did not have enough money to invest. And the day they will have more money to invest, they will invest more.

Okay. So moving on to the last two questions. So we've got Abhilash now from BNP.

I've got two, please. Firstly, just a clarification on the shareholder returns, given what you said about the sort of mix between dividends and buybacks. So if we think about 2027, should we think that it's -- the dividend is sort of EUR 500 million, growing by 7.5% and then any further gap you sort of make up with buybacks so that you do at least EUR 800 million a year from 2027 onwards as well?

And then secondly, just a quick clarification, please, on the numbers in France, if I may. The EBITDA there continues to benefit from the sort of a net benefit from pass-through revenues for the last few quarters. Maybe if you could just give some color there and whether you think that this is sustainable in the coming periods as well, that would be helpful.

Marco will take the question on the shareholder returns. And then maybe on the detailed question on numbers, we'll take it in the call later in the IR team, okay?

Okay. On shareholder return, yes, we are committed to EUR 800 million not only for '26, but '27 onwards. So, as you said, the EUR 500 million will grow 7.5%. So the EUR 500 million becomes -- so help me with the math is EUR 540 million or something like this. And the remaining part is going to be allocated depending where the share price is going to be in 2027. Please hand me to surprise me to make me the doubt that making share buybacks is not convenient. So it's a topic for the moment. Same as for the total amount, as we always said. So we fix -- we committed to a minimum. And every time we can allocate more, we will allocate more.

Okay. So last question coming from Fernando Abril at Alantra.

First, a follow-up on the shareholder remuneration. So I don't know if you can be a bit more precise on the leverage target on the 5x to 6x EBITDA I don't know if you want to be today in the upper end of the range or the low end because, I mean, 1x EBITDA is EUR 3 billion to EUR 4 billion of potential remuneration for the next four, five years. So I don't know if you can be a bit more precise where do you want leverage to be in the next years?

And then second question on expansion CapEx. I've seen it is down around 10% year-on-year. Also as a percentage of sales is down more than 100 basis points. I don't know if you have any -- I don't know if this is -- this was temporary or a structural decline for the next years? And do you have any internal target for expansion CapEx to be as a percentage of sales in the next few years?

Cool. On the financial leverage, being prudent depends also on the moment, on the climate, on what is around us. So what we said is we want to be in the 5x to 6x. And then where if it is going to be more 5.5x or 5.7x, et cetera, it will depend zillion, zillion things. I became CFO in 2008 and the world exploded all of a sudden. And people who was CFO zero interest rates had another story.

So, I think, Fernando, if I can add, on the Capital Markets Day, what we said is that our target was the middle point, 5.5x, and we would move up and down from 5x to 6x depending how interest rates are moving. And that has not changed. We remain exactly the same. Interest rates are maybe a bit lower also with investment grade that we were not at the moment or we became just at the moment. So more or less, that has not changed.

Also just to highlight one topic on that, that is remember, and we mentioned that in the Capital Markets Day, we delever every year around 0.4x. And that's important because when you were saying where we stand today, we stand at 6.4x, but with the capacity of deleveraging of 0.4x per annum.

The way we consider expansion CapEx is not a percentage of the revenues. The way we consider is we go project by project. We look if the projects have a good return. This year, we decreased a bit the expansion CapEx, but it's not -- I think that considering a fixed percentage is very convenient for making -- for modeling but it's not the way that we work every day. So countries send us projects. So they intercept projects. They prefilter the project in order to avoid us to analyze the projects that are clearly not convenient. And then they compete for a basket of resources. So best project goes first. So this is the way we work. It's not a fixed percentage. So I would be happy to have a very good project with very good returns, so going forward.

Okay. So thank you. Thank you very much, everybody, for being on the call and all your interesting questions. As always, the IR team are available and management. So please feel free to call. Thank you very much.

Thanks, everyone.

Thank you.

Hello. Good morning, everyone. Welcome to our first half 2025 results conference call. I'm Maria Carrapato, Head of Investor Relations. And I'd like to thank you for joining us today.

I have our CEO, Marco Patuano; and our CFO, Raimon Trias, on the call. We'll go through a brief summary of our results, and then we'll be open to take your questions after the presentation.

[Operator Instructions]. Okay, so without further ado, over to Marco.

Thank you. Thank you, Maria. Good morning, everyone, and thank you so much for your time. I'm delighted to start with the key highlights of the first half of the year, which continues to be marked by consistent execution with solid performance across all the key metrics, reflecting our commitment with our objectives.

As a reminder, the numbers we are reporting today are impacted by our change of perimeter due to the sale of our business in Ireland and Austria. There is no contribution from Austria for 2025 and Ireland only contributed for the first 2 months.

On a comparable pro forma basis, we achieved a strong growth in the semester with revenues reaching EUR 1.958 billion and representing an organic growth of 6%. And our EBITDA after lease reaching EUR 1.163 billion, implying organic growth of 8.1%.

Our recurring leverage free cash flow per share improved by 10.2%. We are successfully delivering on our push for more profitable growth with significant improvement in efficiencies, which Raimon will give you more color shortly.

In terms of operational development, we're excited to announce the renewal of our agreement with ODIDO in the Netherlands, the milestone reinforces Cellnex's long-term industrial alliance with its clients securing the associated revenues for an additional 15 years. It reinforces our commitment to delivering reliable, sustainable infrastructure solution that support innovation and growth across the sector.

Continuing our effort, we have extended our infrastructure agreement with Telefonica to support the rollout of up to 3,000 RAN sharing Digi PoPs. This strengthens our partnership and reinforce our role in enabling fast, efficient network expansion.

From a capital structure standpoint, we've issued a 7-year EUR 750 million bond with a 3.5% coupon. Additionally, we refinanced our EUR 2.8 billion syndicated credit facility, ensuring our ability to meet future maturities and liquidity needs. I'm pleased to share with you another important development announced yesterday by S&P.

S&P threshold for Cellnex investment-grade rating have been -- become more tolerant, allowing us to have a higher debt ratio whilst maintaining the same rating. As a consequence, Cellnex has been upgraded to positive outlook. These give us materially more financial flexibility. As of today, we have not taken any decision as to how this additional flexibility could impact our capital allocation strategy. This also be conditional upon agreeing a comparable level of flexibility with Fitch.

During the second quarter, we successfully completed our share buyback program, a key initiative aligned with our capital allocation strategy. We acquired 24,064,404 owned shares, representing 3.41% of the share capital at an average price of EUR 33.24 per share. These decisive move reflects our confidence in the long-term value of the company and demonstrates our commitment to enhancing shareholder remuneration. Moreover, this action reinforces our disciplined financial strategy and capital structure optimization, while maintaining flexibility to invest in growth and value-creative opportunities.

In summary, we believe our journey today has been marked by the definition of the clear road map towards profitable growth, solid commercial, operational and financial performance, strong governance and consistent and disciplined execution. Looking ahead, we are confident in reiterating our guidance and our ability to deliver on our key strategic targets.

Moving to Slide 5. Let me start by reinforcing the foundation of our industrial value proposition, one that is clearly focused on maximizing long-term value for our shareholders, while positioning Cellnex as a trusted partner for our clients.

Our business model remains underpinned by strong fundamentals and robust free cash flow visibility. First, let me start from the strength of our MSAs. We have very long-term contracts in place with watertight all-or-nothing clause renewal mechanism, CPI-linked escalators and very limited churn concessions.

More importantly, they provide predictability of future cash flows with anchor tenants securing the vast majority being in approximately 70% of our revenues. The strength of this contractual framework has been proven over and over again and more recently, through renewals with major operators like Wind Italy, following its merger with Hutchison with the renewal of Telefonica in Spain, with the Vodafone and Hutchison merger in U.K. and with the MasOrange case in Spain.

But I would also like to stress that we have other very important renewals for several of our secondary tenant contracts. Vodafone, VMO2 in the U.K. is the so-called [indiscernible] agreement -- sorry, I had a moment of blackout in the communication. Is it fine? Yes. Okay.

Vodafone, VMO2 in the U.K., the so-called agreement [indiscernible] Iliad in France, we extended extra 10 years. Orange in France, we extended the secondary contract for another 12 years. So not only we have demonstrated that our anchor contracts are rock solid, but also the second tenant agreements in our largest markets are also long term and robust.

With these renewals and frame the importance of our industrial partnership and spirit of constructive collaboration with our customer in each market, we have successfully increased the maturity and scope of service preserving the underlying value of our contracts.

I would also like to stress that we had only 1 renewal coming up for 2030, the terms of which have been already agreed and no other major renewals until 2035. We have an important role as a key technological enabler. Our infrastructure enables the efficient use of spectrum of scarce and highly valuable resource.

We operate in a sector with very high investment requirements and our specialized operation of passive telecom infrastructure allows our customers to focus on their operations. In particular, Europe continued to lag in 5G deployment and general network investments. Against a regulatory backdrop that appears more favorable to the existing or financially stronger operators capable of supporting the level of investment required to be globally competitive. And we are strategically well positioned partner in the creation of that healthier telecom ecosystem, providing operators a neutral platform to develop the coverage, the capacity and the reliability of their network with the most rational use of resources.

A key example is the U.K. where the regulator did not oppose the VodafoneThree merger. However, it did impose significant additional investment in network improvement. We also play a key role as enabler of new market designs. As an example, we made possible for Digi to enter the Portuguese market, providing around 4,000 colocation in a record of 18 months.

After Digi was awarded spectrum in Spain, we've also enabled their expansion via network sharing agreement on Telefonica equipments and the launch of Iliad in Italy be a combination of network sharing with Wind and the building of dedicated infrastructure.

To complete the picture on long-term value orientation. As of today, we have contracted backlog of over EUR 100 billion, supporting very high free cash flow visibility. Concerns have been raised recently about our capacity to protect our revenues when we renew our contract. I stress that as of today, all, and I underline all, of our anchor agreements have been renewed maintaining the original MSA prices.

The auditor renewal announcement confirmed these thesis once again. Even more importantly, since it involves both the anchor and the secondary component of our business relation. We are also expanding the scope of our partnership as telecom infrastructure play an increasingly central role in European digital defense and energy strategy.

Beyond connectivity, we are actively investing in opportunity such as smart IoT solution, critical communication networks, tower used for drones, battery storage systems and many more. And we are also complementing the active network of our clients every time that a neutral host solution is more convenient and more feasible than an MNO proprietary network.

I referred to DAS and Small Cells, a growing market of specialized coverage, for instance, stadium, malls, hospital, offices, city centers with restriction and others, in which we do not compete with our clients. We offer turnkey solution to MNO and business users.

All of this is guided by a disciplined governance framework and the leadership team committed to long-term value creation. In short, Cellnex continued to deliver resilient performance focused on profitable growth backed by very high-quality and robust contracts and industrial relationship with our clients, a strategically well-positioned asset base, a transparent and disciplined governance structure and a clear strategy to deliver sustainable value for our shareholders.

We are conscious that rumors on consolidation in the French market and potential impact on us have been the cause for much speculation, much more than needed. And as such, I would like to give you some objective data points that will help you to understand the context.

Cellnex is strongly positioned to navigate any potential market consolidation in France. We operate over 26,000 PoPs -- sites and 31,000 PoPs, generating EUR 725 million in tower revenues. Our business is underpinned by long-term MSAs with SFR, Bouygues Iliad as anchor tenants with the first renewal programmed for only 2037. And Orange as a secondary tenant running until 2037, 2045 with fixed escalator 1%, 2%, ensuring stable and predictable revenues.

Importantly, all of our secondary tenant contracts have already been renewed for between 10 and 12 years. At the end of 2024, we also renewed a non-anchor contact with Iliad, Free Mobile for circa 1,700 colocation of Hivory towers. The length of the MSA is 10 years and we have an individual contract for another 12 years.

France is leader in brand sharing with 2 major frameworks, the Crozon agreement between SFR and Bouygues, a 20-year long deal covering around 65% of the population. In the case of Hivory, approximately 11,000 PoPs, more than 50% are in RAN sharing. And the so-called New Deal Mobile a government-led initiative involving all the MNOs to expand 4G, 5G in rural areas.

So in these RAN sharing areas, roughly 2/3 of the country, networks are already being deployed efficiently with minimal impact from any potential consolidation scenario. The remaining area, the so-called dense area are those where the impact of consolidation should be analyzed. They represent, roughly speaking, 1/3 of the country, and we have between 40% and 50% of our PoPs.

When looking at the various consolidation combination between MNOs, it is important to take into account that on one hand, the physical overlap between the sites, and on the other hand, the automatic increase in subscriber and data traffic after a potential combination basically. The operational ability to [ cancel a site ] post combination is lower than the pure contractual terms.

On MSAs, which account for 90% of the tower revenues include all-or-nothing clauses, a churn rate is allowed below 1%. And secondary tenants, approximately 4,700, contribute less than 10% of the revenues and have been already renewed for 10 to 12 years.

Finally, as seen in other markets like the U.K. post VodafoneThree combination often led to increased network investment, a trend that would further reinforce Cellnex role as a neutral long-term infrastructure partner, a factor that also result as a positive from the potential consolidation in trials and the resulting improved credit rating of large client.

Depending on the final outcome and how the assets are distributed among the other operator, Altice's fragile financial situation today will no longer pollute market dynamics and credit risk profile will improve. All these elements make us an unavoidable and strategically critical party in any potential market consolidation talks.

Our contract with SFR cannot be transferred in parts without our consent. And as we did in the past, we are going to give our consent, swapping some colocation flexibility for the guarantee by the new tenant that the entire portfolio assigned will be duly priced and maintained for a longer period.

We have thus far demonstrated in Spain and the U.K. recent market consolidation that we are available to support the development of a healthier MNO ecosystem, introducing some short-term operational benefit, while safeguarding and even potentially growing the value of our long-term agreements, also standing to reap benefits from potential optimization that result from MNO consolidation.

Therefore, in terms of the current environment, we support the favorable regulatory tailwinds around MNO consolidation in Europe, if they favor behavioral remedies, namely investment to improve network quality and densification in opposition to structure remedies of the previous years. Adding all up, we believe that the impact of potential consolidation scenario in France is limited with potential upside.

Move to Slide 7. Further reinforcing the health of our strategic long-term partnership in different markets across Europe and our continued efforts to enhance network infrastructure, I'm pleased to share with you 2 key renewal agreements. From July 1, Digi [ in space ] started to use the spectrum it acquired as a remedy taker of the MasOrange merger.

Within this context, Digi and Telefonica formalized a long-term network agreement. Over the next 16 years, Telefonica will provide the Digi with both RAN sharing services and roaming on its network. To support this transition and to enhance the overall network, Cellnex and Telefonica have extended their infrastructure agreement.

We will deploy 110 additional physical point of presence by Telefonica, significantly boosting their network densification and we will activate up to 3,000 RAN sharing Digi PoPs over the next years. This effort will not only increase Digi networks capability, but also reinforce our leadership position in infrastructure sharing and efficient network development.

In the Netherlands, we renewed key infrastructure agreements with ODIDO, strengthening Cellnex's position as a key partner to enable high-quality connectivity and digital transformation across the country. Our contract is renewed for 15 years. It is CPI-linked and maintains the revenues of our original agreement, ensuring long-term cash flow stability and predictability. Together, these agreements are a testament to our strategic approach to the collaborative relationship we have with our customers, focusing on long-term value creation, operational excellence and enabling our partners to thrive in an increasingly connected world.

My last chart is on ESG. Turning to our ESG progress. This is an area where we continue to lead with purpose and measurable impact. Sustainability is not just a pillar of our strategy, it is embedded in how we operate, how we grow, how we create value for the long term.

I would like to highlight a relevant milestone in our decarbonization strategy this quarter, having achieved the ISO 50001 certification for 80% of our energy use. Our efforts in responsible leadership continue to earn us global independent recognition, renewing best-in-class positions in the major ESG rankings and standing out at the forefront of the most sustainable companies in the world.

Raimon, I drink a glass of water, and I leave to you -- the floor to you. It has been a bit longer than in the past. But I think that the MNO consolidation deserved a bit more space. I hope I made clarity, but of course, I assume that more questions will come afterwards. Raimon, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Marco. Good morning, everyone. I will now run through some of the main financial and operating metrics we are reporting for the period. Let me start reminding you as Marco did that our numbers this first half '25 are impacted by the change of perimeter, as we have no contribution from Austria in the year '25 and Ireland only contributed within 2 months.

This table gives you a clear comparison as where we are removing this effect on our numbers and highlighting the organic growth derived from our performance. As you can see, we continue delivering strong operating leverage. Revenues grew 6%, our EBITDA 7.3%, the EBITDAaL down 8% and our recurring levered free cash flow per share, 10%.

Let me remind you as well that our recurring levered free cash flow per share has improved not only as a result of the improvement of the recurring levered free cash flow, but also as a result of the share buyback we undertook during the first half of the year when we are -- we bought 24 million shares.

Moving to our financial performance on Slide 11. As I mentioned, our revenues increased 6% on an organic basis and the adjusted EBITDA by 7.3% compared to the same period last year. This growth has been driven by the 4 business lines we operate, and in particular, by the towers and the fiber connectivity and housing services.

Our EBITDAaL increased 8.1% on the same basis, highlighting further growth in operating leverage and enhanced profitability. As we will mention later, we have accelerated significantly versus last year, the land efficiency program, helping us improve the EBITDA.

In terms of cash flow generation, our recurring levered free cash flow amounted to EUR 832 million, with growth set to accelerate throughout the year, thanks to the normalization of cash items below EBITDAaL, as I will explain later in more detail.

As I said, the recurring levered free cash flow per share has improved 10% on the year as well.

Moving to our key operational metrics. We have added 2,223 sites in the context of our build-to-suit programs mainly in France and Poland. Our net colocations in the first 6 months reached 578, impacted by the 974 withdrawals from MasOrange in Spain, as you know, negotiated in the context of the merger.

Colocations have been well balanced by company improving our tenancy ratio to almost 1.6 -- 1.59x. As regards to our investments in efficiency to optimize our asset base and drive operational efficiency, we have undertaken a combination of land site actions, acquisition, upfront payments, contract renegotiations totaling EUR 115 million in the first half '25. This compares to the EUR 93 million we did last year. So there has been an increase of 23.7% that reflects the increased focus on land efficiency after the creation of Celland.

Moving to Slide 12. The first half of 2025 has seen another period of consistent commercial performance with PoPs growing 4% compared to the same period last year. This is explained by the net colocations contributing 1.5%. It would be 1.8% if we were to exclude the impact of the MasOrange in Spain.

As a reminder, the new contract signed with MasOrange in Spain gives our client network flexibility in the short term in exchange for a single longer contract until 2048 and additional services to be provided by the [ them ]. As per this agreement, no impact in revenues is expected until 2026, despite the churn seen in terms of PoPs this year. Nevertheless, the impact expected for '26 onwards will be compensated by new business. As discussed by Marco before, regarding consolidation, it is another example of how we have been managing the various consolidation cases to date without a long-term impact to Cellnex and the value of our contracts.

Moving to the next slide. We maintained strong organic growth at 6% year-on-year. As you will know, this is due to various factors like the price escalator and CPI from our contracts, the colocation we're undertaking on the existing sites and the new build-to-suit that we are building mainly in France and Poland.

To provide a clearer picture of our performance in the period, excluding the impact of the change of perimeter on this slide, we are providing our organic revenue bridge on a pro forma basis. Let's look at the data by business line.

As you can see on Slide 14, our tower business represents 80% of our total revenues; is growing organically at 5.2%, driven by escalators and CPI, collocations and build-to-suite. As of June 30, all price increases from the contracts have already been applied to all our customers in the year, and we have excluded, for comparison proposals, Austria and Ireland from the 2024 base.

Moving to the next slide, we can see comparable performance of our other business lines, which continue to show healthy organic growth. In fiber connectivity and housing services, revenues grew by over 20% year-on-year. A key contributor to this performance is the network project in France, which exemplifies our ability to deliver advanced fiber infrastructure tailored to high-density and high-demand settings. Thus the Small Cells and RAN saw growth of around 2.8%, by densifying networks and enhancing indoor coverage. What's driving this performance is the growing demand for smart infrastructure connectivity, particularly in high traffic environments like stadiums, such as Etihad Stadium and Riyadh Air Metropolitano; transport such as the Metro Socíété du Grand Paris; airports such as Milan Malpensa and Milan Linate; and hospitals such as Bergamo.

These deployments demonstrate our ability and technical expertise to adapt and deliver value in mission-critical scenarios. We could also add to this list, Metrocall, our joint venture within the Metro de Madrid which operates the DAS service for the MNOs in Madrid underground now developing the 5G update.

In Broadcasting, revenues increased by 2%. This cost-efficient business line operating mainly in Spain and the Netherlands continues to generate strong cash flow and offers long-term visibility, thanks to its mature and stable standard.

If we move to Slide 16, we keep improving all our cost drivers to drive efficiency. As part of the strategy set out on our Capital Markets Day and our continued focus on industrial excellence, our main efficiency ambition related to asset rationalization, cost base optimization and group-wide productivity. Again, considering pro forma numbers, the reduction in headcount is part of our broader strategy to optimize resource allocation, enhance productivity and focus on core activities.

In June, it took place the first phase of the recently announced redundancy program in Spain, which is implemented over the '25, '27 period. This plan will also result in discontinuing certain operational maintenance contracts, which have a nil or negative EBITDA contribution.

In repair, maintenance costs following the positive performance last year, we continue to see good progress in the period, representing a 1.6% decrease per tower and the evolution of our general expenses translated into a 4.4% decrease per tower. This trend reflects our continued focus on lean workflows and disciplined cost control.

Finally, on leases, we have been able to reduce cost by 1.1% per tower, reflecting good momentum on our land acquisition plan, along with rent negotiation and cash advance initiatives, which are progressing well as discussed before.

Now let's take a look at our debt maturity profile on Slide 16. We are aware that this page is updated as of today, not 30th of June. All 2025 maturities have been even repaid or refinanced. As a result, there are no remaining maturities left in '25, while we still remain with a strong cash position, circa EUR 1.6 billion.

Regarding our debt management during the first half '25, we have executed the following transactions: We secured a new EUR 625 million syndicated term loans with a margin below 1% as communicated in our first quarter results. In May, we successfully completed a EUR 750 million bond issuance. Thanks to active interest rate management through the use of hedging instruments, the effective annual cost of this issuance was reduced by more than 10 basis points. The coupon of the bond is 3.5%.

Finally, in July, we refinanced our main syndicated credit facility, increasing its total amount from EUR 2.5 billion to EUR 2.8 billion. This refinancing not only extends in maturity to 2030 [indiscernible] but also includes two 1-year extension options, which could push the final maturity to July '32. It has been supported by 26 financial institutions. This is essential for maintaining and strengthening Cellnex's long-term liquidity position. We have a robust and well-structured capital trends, liquidity remains strong with more than EUR 4.7 billion of liquidity available, EUR 1.6 billion held in cash in order to cover upcoming maturities.

78% of our debt is fixed rate and short-term maturities have been proactively managed with average maturity now standing at 4.5 years and our average cost of debt of 2% is expected to increase only marginally in the next years. As Marco mentioned at the beginning, Standard & Poors just revised their outlook to positive, reflecting the improvement we have been doing over the past 2 years on our capital structure, but also the stable and predictable cash flows and higher barriers of entry of the sector.

Finally, on the last slide, we are confident in reiterating our 2025 outlook and all our public financial targets, reflecting the resilience of our business model and solid execution across all our markets.

We now remain at your disposal to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you, Raimon. Thank you, Maria.

Okay. So in terms of the lineup of questions, our first question comes from Andrew Lee from Goldman Sachs. Could I ask you to pronounce your questions clearly so that we can all understand them in the room.

I had 2 questions. Firstly, just on the balance sheet and capital allocation. And then just secondly, if you could give us an update on the Swiss and data center potential asset disposals, where are we with those processes? On the first question on the balance sheet. You obviously mentioned the positive update from S&P. I just wondered if you could talk through a bit more color how that has affected you're thinking about your optimal gearing for now and how that thinking has evolved?

I think you've talked about a 5x to 6x kind of range of leverage that you're comfortable with is that rising now? And any kind of color you could think on how you're thinking about that would be really helpful. Also, just secondly, in terms of acquisitions or potential capital allocation, is it still right to assume that it's more likely you'll be spending money on shareholder returns than M&A?

Yes, Andrew, thank you very much for both the questions because I think -- the first 2 hot topic of the day. Well, the update of the S&P has been a long, long, long discussion we have been having with the rating agencies, meaning that the strength of our balance sheet and the predictability of our cash flow is really remarkable. If you add the industrial -- our industrial position, the differentiation of the portfolio, if you put all in the basket, what you see is that we have more credit capacity than what was originally allowed.

Now the conversation with S&P, I make the long story short, is de facto a rating improvement, but it has not been shared as of today by Fitch. So we are having similar conversations with Fitch in order to understand where is the comfort zone of Fitch. And therefore, the entire work is not done.

What is the takeaway? The takeaway is that our strategy and our discipline has been rewarded by the rating agencies, point number one. We have more flexibility, point number two. This flexibility has to be confirmed by Fitch. So as of today, we have the flexibility only from 1 of the 2 rating agencies, and our view doesn't change.

So it's good to have more flexibility in the balance sheet. But as of today, we stay committed to our strategy, to our financial discipline and going forward, with the Board of Directors, we will understand if and how to use this financial discipline if and when agreed by both the rating agencies.

With reference to the asset rotation. Well, to say the truth, we have very little to share with you. The potential transaction, both in France and Switzerland are still in the -- on the desk of our M&A guys. So we have, as of now, nothing to share. And we will provide you, as usual, update as soon as we have reliable information.

Let me add a couple of points. We said tens of time, but I will never tired of saying it again. We are very disciplined in our approach to the capital allocation and every decision we make are based to the maximization of the shareholder value. So what I mean is we are not forced to do nothing.

We have a solid capital structure, as I said, further reported yesterday by the upgrade of S&P. We have committed to a shorter remuneration, which is not based on further disposals. So this is what we already said. We said that the original EUR 500 million have to be read as a new level of EUR 800 million. So this is nothing new. But again, this is not based on any further asset disposal. And as soon as we have more information, we will share with you.

Okay. So moving on to the next question. It comes from Akhil Dattani from JPMorgan.

I've got 2 questions as well, please. Firstly, Marco, as you said, a helpful slide on the French market structure and what's going on. I had a couple of clarifications just to make sure that we've understood that slide properly. You've mentioned in the slides that -- I mean your comments that the variables that could be relevant would be the overlap between the anchor sites. So I wondered if maybe you could just comment on what that is and the way you think about the relevance of that. And then you also mentioned offsetting that the opportunity in the rural areas from once you have stronger players potentially seeing more investments in that.

Again, could you help us understand and quantify how you think about the scale of that? Just so we understand the puts and takes in terms of how we think about that. And then the second question was just around the asset sale process, and it's a bit of a bigger picture question rather than specific to these assets. When we stand back and look at the industry as a whole today, it feels that the last few years, public markets have derated infrastructure assets, but private markets were still paying much richer multiples. This year, that seems to be eroding a bit. If I look in the fiber space, there's not been that many transactions in towers. But look, in the fiber space, these multiples have come down.

And we saw earlier this week there was the French transaction on the Infracos between Bouygues and SFR and the implied model of that looks quite low as well. So can you just help us understand when you look at the buyers out there in the private equity world, do you think there is a bit of, let's say, tension there in terms of just where they've been paying and what's going on or do you think that, that's something we shouldn't read too much into? And I guess with that, did you look at Infracos at all or was that not an asset you cared for?

Good. So thank you for both your questions. On the French case, it's -- you got perfectly the 2 points that I wanted to underline in the chart. So if you allow me, I'll swap the order of the answer. So I start from the rural.

As of today, the rural coverage in France is a mix of RAN sharing and colocation. So the number of duplicated towers, I mean, duplicated towers for me is you have 2 sides, 2 infra where technically speaking, with a higher colocation rate, you can serve the population with only 1 tower, okay?

The number of duplicated assets is relatively limited. Why it's relatively limited? Because SFR and Bouygues Telecom are RAN sharing by design. And Orange, after the, let me say, the first phase of network deployment, they started using colocation more and more. They have Totem tower, they started to use colocation more and more.

We have several thousands of colocation requests from Orange in the rural areas. So it's a big market. As you know, France is more than 500,000 square kilometers. France is big. And the more you go in the deep rural, the more you feel that the -- let me say the voice coverage is okay, but the data coverage is not okay.

So in the rural, the possibility of, let me say, network rationalization, I would say that the network is fairly rational as of today. So impact, modest upside material. The problem of the upside is that the original build-to-suit criteria, so the 1 that was, let me say, an extension of an M&A transaction is not actual any longer.

And so if someone asks us to replicate the old build-to-suit agreement, well, the answer is that those agreements are not replicable anymore. In the urban areas, in the urban areas, I want to share with you -- so before talking what -- how we see France is what we see happening in Spain and in England.

So it's more moving the pieces on the chessboard than canceling. Why? Because in the dense urban areas, putting together 2 customer base, increase dramatically the capacity needs of a network. So the risk is that you have the coverage, but you cannot access to the network or you have such a crappy service and sometime in London, you have some examples that you see that the operator needs to do something.

What we see in London, for example, is a super strong acceleration of the densification by VodafoneThree. So what we assume is, on the one hand, there are the contracts. The contracts allow my client to move a limited number -- or sorry, to cancel a very limited number of PoPs. But I know that my client needs more flexibility. So I don't want to impede the flexibility of the client, as we did in Spain.

We are favoring the flexibility, but with no financial impact, not even limited with no financial impact. I think that this is going to be the case also in France. The contract is designed in this way. The secondary -- so what has been super important, possibly our fault. We did not -- we've not been loud enough in the past.

We've been working a lot on the on the secondary contract. We renewed the secondary contract for 10, 12, 15 years with Telefonica, renewed at a very long secondary contract, very long. So this is -- I hope I gave you the answer. If not, please tell me and I can deep dive for another couple of hours.

On the asset side, you're touching a very, very delicate point, which is the assets are basically the same assets. The point is did something change on the -- in the infra fund environment. So I would say that it has been tough for them to raise new funds. If you take super successful firms, they struggled to raise new funds. And therefore, in order to be more competitive, they need returns that are not the traditional infra returns.

If you -- what is the expected return on capital of an infra 3 years ago? It was a mid-high single digit. It was something 7%, 8%. Today, this return on capital is not there. So I don't think that the problem is on the quality of the assets, on the quality of the cash flow, on the predictability of the cash flow.

I think that the finger point on fragility on our business model possibly is a bit overestimating the downside risk. When I hear talking about 3%, 4% risk, I think that this is too much. So it's not about us, I think it's more about the fundraising of the private market.

That's super interesting. And Marco, just on Infracos, was that an asset that you looked at as a company?

Sorry, say it again.

The Infracos transaction that Bouygues and SFR announced this week selling their towers, I just wondered if that was an asset that you looked at as a potential acquisition?

Oh, yes, we've been looking to the asset. The problem that in France, I have a strict antitrust limitation. And then there were some specific elements that did not fit perfectly with us. So we decided to exit from the process fairly quickly because useless to spend the time and to use my resources to an asset that we were not interested in.

Okay. So now moving on to the next question. It comes from Andre [indiscernible] at CBS.

Thank you very much for the presentation and especially the more detail that you gave us on France and other contracts. So I'm just going to stick to the theme, if I may. So just wondering, you highlight the colocation renewals for Iliad and Orange. I'm just wondering what the colocation situation is with SFR and Bouygues...

Andre, can I interrupt you? Could you speak maybe speak a little bit more slowly and clearly, it's a bit difficult to hear you in the room.

It's a bit disturbed. The line is a little bit disturbed. So if you speak a little bit slowly...

Okay. I was wondering on the slide on France, so you are highlighting the renewals that you've done for Iliad and Orange. I'm just wondering what the colocation situation is for the agreement with SFR and Bouygues because those are potentially even more important? And on that theme, if you can maybe expand a bit how the average secondary tenancy looks like in other markets because I think maybe not many of us were aware that some of these contracts are actually this longer that you are renewing them at these lengths? If you could talk a bit more broadly about the general secondary contract landscape.

And then second question would be in relation to the deal that Akhil was talking about with Phoenix Tower. What kind of impact are you seeing, if any, on France and Italy specifically where Phoenix has done some deals and is becoming a bit more of a weight in terms of market share. So is this having maybe an adverse impact on pricing in these markets? Any color on that would be very helpful.

Okay. Sorry, the communication was still, let's say, mid quality. So if I don't -- if I've not understood properly, please correct me, and I'll follow up. Colocation in France was your first question. So colocation in France, we have to split 2 different concepts. One is colocation coming from RAN sharing, so colocation coming from RAN sharing is entirely SFR, Bouygues. They have these network sharing called Crozon. It works in all the countries except the high dense area. And the contract for us is fairly protective because the contract clearly says that the fee remains unchanged in case the RAN sharing agreement is not active any longer. So they wanted to integrate the network. So having a single network instead of RAN sharing, be my guest, it doesn't change a penny of my revenues.

On the secondary tenant contract, so point number one, the 3 operators that are -- that have an MSA with us, at the time of the portfolio acquisition signed very important build-to-suit agreements. So as of today, there is a significant number of sites -- individual sites, tenancy one, with most of them.

So the second tenant is something that has been used particularly by Iliad and by Orange. Iliad and Orange have quite long contracts. They are priced -- let me say, the price is a market price, let's say, approximately 50% of an anchor fee, more or less.

We are talking about 3,000, 4,000 PoPs and excluding the RAN sharing, so on top of the RAN sharing. And we agreed with them 2 things. One is the extension of the duration of our contract. As always, there is a modest respiration rate that is quite modest, well below 1%. And we agreed on a 10-year duration contract with CPI escalators, so the usual one.

We have agreed with them. We have a pipe of further colocation requirements, which depends mostly on permitting. So the bottleneck today is represented by the permitting. So on the pricing of the secondaries, I think I gave you the answer. If I understood well, the second part of your question was again on the deal of the Crozon tower. Is it correct?

Yes. How it impacts...

Yes. So I think that the company who went for the -- so let me make one step back. The tower market in France is pretty fragmented. And so if you take the number of pay tower players, it's Cellnex, Totem, Phoenix, TDF, American Tower and there was Crozon and there was -- it's way too fragmented. So the fact that the market, the tower market that go in the direction of the consolidation, it's a net positive for the French tower market because you avoided to have marginal operators who tend to act irrationally in order to get more scale.

Tower business is a scale business. So if you don't get scale at the end, you do something to get the scale, which can be something not good for the market because you can start touching the prices in a rational way. So we have limitations in acquiring big portfolios.

When we made the last acquisition, the antitrust gave us remedies that ended with the sale of several thousand towers, approximately 3,000 towers, which is the base of the Phoenix Tower portfolio. So if you ask me, is 3,000 towers an optimal sizing for getting the scale? The answer is no.

But with 3,000 towers, you don't get all the benefit of the scale. So it's absolutely natural that you have, on one side, a market too fragmented; on the other side, someone with good funding capacity who wants to get more scale. So I think that what happened is natural. The market goes towards a more consolidated tower market, which means a more rational tower market, which is good. And it was a portfolio too big for us for entering without another nightmare of you buy 10 sites and you have to sell 5. So my team in France has so many things to do that I don't want them to be in this. I hope Andre, I answered your questions.

If I may, maybe more directly on the SFR and Bouygues situation? So obviously, there are 2 MSAs. There is the network sharing but then what is the exposure to, say, less protected trade secondary finances, if any?

The -- yes, we have 2 MSAs because we have 2 MSA, one with SFR and one with Bouygues. But the 2 MSA on the RAN sharing component are cloning the clause one the other. So believe me, it's even less than modest of the potential. If the consolidation is -- on the network is Bouygues with the SFR, I open a bottle of champagne.

So thanks for your question. So moving on to the next question. It comes from Rohit Modi from Citi. Rohit, if I could ask if you could also place your question clearly so that we can understand in the room.

Sure. Two questions from my side. One is a follow-up on the French consolidation. You mentioned about limited impact from the French consolidation, does that mean that the limitation from the agreement, you're ready to let go some of the revenue or that's a combination of some of the revenue that is already at risk when consolidation happens as well as some of the revenue might let go for a higher duration? Second question is around the capital structure. And I understand you mentioned that it remains as it is. But I'm just trying to understand what happens if sale and French tower sale doesn't happen and you have a bandwidth from S&P, but you still need Fitch -- approval from Fitch, if Fitch doesn't give approval, is there any change in terms of your shareholder returns for next year?

Cool. I leave to the CFO the capital structure because otherwise, I don't understand why you pay the salary. And I take the one on the France.

Well, I always refer to limited impact. When I speak about France, I would say that my base case is no impact, okay? This is my base case. Why I'm so positive? Well, point number one, the quality of the contracts we have. Same as we did in Spain; in Spain, we traded operational flexibility with 2 things, with revenue stability and contract duration.

Now in France, to say the truth, contract duration -- contracts are fairly long, very long, well beyond 2040. So I'm not particularly worried. But what is important to me is that since it is -- the contracts are all-or-nothing, what we don't want is the fragmentation of the contracts.

So do you want to split the content? Okay, it aggregates to an existing contract with a total all-or-nothing at the renewal date, which means that before you had 11,000, 12,000, okay, you buy a portfolio of 5, fantastic; at the renewal, we will discuss about all-or-nothing of 16,000.

This is the point -- that is, by the way, what we discussed with MasOrange, and it's rational. It's a win-win. So my base case, Rohit, is that we have this case, I'm pretty confident what is important is, I think, that everybody understands that you cannot discuss about in-market consolidation without having at the table such an important player as Cellnex, who is a partner of choice of 3 out of 4 of the players in the country. So this is where we stand. Raimon?

So on the capital structure, Rohit, if you recall, when we had our Capital Markets Day in March '24, we committed to various things. The first one was to be investment grade. It is something that we already said before that date, but we achieved on that date. We committed to be 5x to 6x levered. Being investment grade meant being below 7x with Fitch, below 7x with S&P.

And we also committed to start shareholder remuneration in the year '26 with a EUR 500 million dividend. What has changed since then until today? What has changed is that S&P yesterday because of the improved tenure, they have given us more flexibility. But Fitch as of today remains exactly the same. They have not changed anything on their side.

We remain with a limit of 7x. This means that to be within the 7x, we still need to be between our 5x and 6x. This is not changing for today. Our commitment to be investment grade has not changed. We will remain exactly the same. And from a shareholder remuneration that has been a big change.

So as you know, we had the EUR 500 million starting in '26. And what we have done is accelerating this shareholder remuneration. We moved shareholder remuneration from '26 to '25 by doing a share buyback, a size of EUR 800 million. And what we committed as well is that for the year '26, the shareholder remuneration between dividends and share buybacks will not be below the EUR 800 million that we committed.

Different divestments of Switzerland or France do not change that picture. This means that what we have committed, the same like we did in the Capital Markets Day, each without further disposals or other inorganic things. This means that the EUR 800 million committed for the year '26 remains whatever happens with the 2 transactions of France and Switzerland. If the transaction were to happen, we will reconsider them the shareholder remuneration for the year '26, but the rest is not changing.

Okay. Sorry, just in the interest of time, we've still got quite a long list questions, and it's -- we're already getting close to lunch time. So what I suggest is, we limit the amount of questions to 2 without follow-ups. And then obviously, the IR team and the management team are available afterwards if we need to -- if you need further detail.

So we'll move on to the next question, which comes from Nick Lyall from Berenberg.

Can I just ask one about the rental levels, please? I'm assuming that the SFR rents for the urban sites that we're talking about are high. So could you just talk about the risk that the rentals are higher in averages in France and how you offset some of that? And also, how much control do you have over the timing of the revenue impact and the short-term impact versus longer-term gains, for example. Could you talk to the risk of that as well, please?

Yes. Well, the topic of the prices in France is no issue. So the prices are fairly aligned in France, which is -- it's the market, it's the dynamic of the market. And in France, it's super interesting because prices are further aligned and the number of operators are many, the tower operators are many.

So it means that there is a market and a market price, different object more or less the same price, which is okay because you -- you have not an incentive to move because you have to trade between different price expectations. But as I told you, it's a super good example because the French tower market is possibly the most fragmented in Europe and prices are not that different.

So I don't expect the pricing to be a particular issue in France if a structural change in the market happens. By the way, everybody considers that the structural change happens tomorrow, which I honestly have to say that it -- it's not that obvious, okay?

So we are just discussing about a case of possible potential scenario and you all know that the transaction is monster big and monster complex and nobody asked to do the French govern what they think about, so it's -- but okay, let's go on. So how do we think short term versus long term?

I think that the short term in case of a redesign, the short term is a lot of activity for gaining efficiency via rationalization. What I mean is if you are for you efficiency can be -- I get the same quality they spend less or I spend the same, again, more quality. So in an integration, especially given the behavioral remedies that the authority are adding to the authorization or putting for the authorization, this is very valuable for a CTO.

What we see both in U.K. and in Spain is that after a while, and I would say less than 1 year, much shorter than what we believed, the same CTO come to us and say, "Hey, guys, the pure rationalization is not enough." Why? Because you put together 2 customer bases that are normally very different, with, for example, when you take Spain, MasOrange -- MASMOVIL and Orange were very different characteristics of the clients in terms of age, in terms of mobility, in terms of data consumption, in terms of benefits.

And so when you have to serve a more complex customer base, you need more. So our experience is, request number one is, flexibility, which drives efficiency. In a relatively short period of time is a much deeper analysis on the short-term needs and then we work on long term, which is 5G penetration, more data, et cetera.

So the long term doesn't change. What is surprising us positively is that we thought that the short-term cannibalization would have been higher than what is really. And the two cases, Spain and U.K., are a test case. I would say, it's not theory, it's test case. By the way, the theory was convinced it was worse than the reality. I hope answered, Nick?

No, that's great.

Thank you.

Okay. So now moving on to Fernando Cordero from Banco Santander.

Two questions. The first one is on the secondary tenant contracts. In that sense, I agree with you, Marco, that you have been also vocal on your strategy on renewing the secondary tenant contracts. You have explained the situation in France. But I would like to understand which is in your current approach when renewing those secondary tenant contracts? For example, we have one big in Italy with Iliad and so on. So to understand, again, which is your strategy for renewing the secondary tenant contracts? And the second question is, I would say, more in detail, but related one of, let's say, the potential optionalities in the sector, which is RAN-as-a-service. I would like to understand why in Poland in the second quarter we have seen a quarter-on-quarter decrease in RAN-as-a-service revenues, particularly considering that this is the, I would say, the test of concept of this business line?

Yes. The Zegona case is paramount for understanding why the secondary tenant contracts are important. Now the Spanish case is one clear example of testing the robustness of an MSA contract. How I look at the secondary tenant for me is an anchor contract differently from the U.S., an anchor contract is made within an industrial component and with the financial. So the industrial component is what you price in the secondary tenant and the financial component is what is priced in the anchor contract. So it's not true that I can -- and this is, by the way, the reason why market by market, if you look at how different tower operators price the secondary tenant, yes, there are marginal difference because in operations, you can be better or worse.

But by the way, a larger operator is more efficient than a smaller operator. And so we have good pricing capacity. So our strategy is we don't compete on secondary tenant on price. What we do is we compete on service. We are -- my Chief Operating Officer, has prepared a deck of SLAs that we ensure to the client, which are top of the industry.

We are pricing rationally. So the way, again, is to have good contracts with good quality depending on the case, there are tower adaptation that we can absorb, but we can agree with the client that they will pay for and this will also influence the price, if I have to absorb the adaptation cost possible it's higher. So that's it. Poland?

On the other topic, Fernando, on Poland, the deviation that you have is not coming from the RAN-as-a-service per se. It's coming from the lower DAS activity. You know that we have DAS both as a service but also as trading. And last year, Poland had more activity on trading, this year is less activity on trading. If you want later on with the IR team, you can get further details so that you can try to understand the variances.

But I hope it's clear what is the difference between a trading activity...

I mean when we talk about trading or DAS-as-a-service, DAS-as-a-service is when we do execute the CapEx so you have long-term revenues coming from the contract where you are charging not only for the assets, but also for the service that we give to them in terms of maintenance and the management of the tool, et cetera. And in the case of the DAS-as-a-trading, what we do is we buy themselves as a trading activity. So you have the cost going through the P&L, not as a CapEx. And then we just invoice a lower amount going forward that is linked to the maintenance of...

Yes. We make an engineering activity for a client.

So that's a difference. But in terms of the numbers, you can check later on with the team if you want.

Okay. So now moving on to Roshan from Deutsche.

I've got 2 questions, please. Firstly, just on France, a very quick follow-up. Whilst we've clearly seen how the situation evolves, I think some of the operators have said discussions are taking place. Have you already been involved in these discussions at this stage? And a lot of talk has been around the top line implications. France remains the one market where you have the biggest build-to-suit, is this where you can really, at this stage, look to combine this build-to-suit something which you've talked about before? So rather than just having the top line benefit, you've clearly got the material benefit at the OpEx level and those high tenancies. And second question, more operational on the LandCo, I think previously, you were running at around 900 site actions a quarter. Whilst you've given the absolute spend, are we still looking at that 900 level or how many of the pricing dynamics changed there?

Okay. In France, we had a separate conversation with all our clients, including SFR. But as far as we know, there is not a common table, so we cannot be invited to a table that is not there. So what we told to everyone and the answer we got from everybody is that the day that this table will be up and running operationally, of course, we are an important element.

You were mentioning the build-to-suit, well, of course, the build-to-suit should be understood, but the build-to-suit if you do, you do, if you don't have the CapEx, then you can allocate the CapEx to other things. So the build-to-suit per se are a good business. As of today, making a big average, let's say, that is like buying the towers at 15x, so it's a good business. But I don't want to build a useless towers. So if my client doesn't want, I save the CapEx and use differently or I give the CapEx back to my CFO, who is happy like a baby.

So on the land, if I may, it is true that until last quarter, we were reporting the number of actions we put. On this quarter, you have seen more focus on the value of the action because it makes more sense to look at the value. We will come back if you needed to put the number of actions. Number of actions have increased slightly. We have done in the first half of the year, 1,900 approx, a bit less, but 1,900. I think the first quarter, we were below the 900, what it means that you have increased a little bit, but it's still not significant. But you have seen that also the value of the actions have been a bit higher. So we have increased the land activity by 23%, reaching EUR 115 million in this first half of the year.

Yes. What we can add is that average price has not changed. So the PBT of the land aggregator is not hurting us in terms of return that we can get from the acquisition or long-term renegotiation of the contracts. And very importantly, we are finally lending to a more wide scenario in France and allow me to stop here.

Okay. So now moving on to Ottavio Adorisio at Bernstein.

For the benefit of time, let me ask a straight question on numbers. The first one is, if you can give us a bit more granularity about the agreements you announced today with [indiscernible] and Digi, you didn't make any change to guidance. So I suppose that other the contracts are negligible or is back-end loaded. The other one on the numbers is on the CapEx. The bulk of the growth CapEx still inside adaptation. Now from memory, it's a lot to do from upgrading some of the towers you bought to multi-tenancy. So if you can provide an update on the ratio of your tower portfolio that's already been upgraded to multi-tenancy? And what's the current upgrade pace you are going at the moment?

Okay. I answer the first. So the Digi case, the RAN sharing fee is a demultiplicator of a second tenant fee because you don't have the physical assets, so you don't use the space and the electromagnetic -- so you're using by capacity to host in terms of potential revenues, but we are not using physical space. It's a plan that is why we didn't change it because of the activation of the 3,000 RAN sharing would take, I would say, something between 2 and 3 years.

But this is -- the total contract value is not negligible is 3 digits. So it's not negligible, the total contract value. But the rollout infrastructure have the pain point, Ottavio, that between the moment you agree and the moment you executed, there is quite some engineering to do and some bottleneck also with the equipment providers that have to do activity, you have to change the software where you have to do things, but it will take a little bit of time. But the total contract value is not negligible.

On the second, I leave it to...

On the second question, as you clearly expressed, we have in the CapEx is tower expansion CapEx that includes the fact of reinforcing the towers in order to have multitenant towers. As you know, when we bought some of the portfolios of towers, some of the towers were not prepared to hold multi-tenants, that's why we are having to do...

Can I expand on this because I think it's important. Please consider that in Europe, most of the towers have been built by the operator themselves for hosting their equipment in a 2G, 3G environment. So when you take the tower, the oldie one, the oldest one, you don't have a big must that can -- you can put an elephant on it. It was a relative thin animal that was able to resist 50, 60, 70 kilos. Now if dual tenant 5G were hanging at 30 meters, we're hanging a tonne with approximately 15 square meters of wind effect. So you have to imagine that in a windy day, you have to avoid that your tower goes 3 miles away because it starts flying, which is what's happened in Portugal 2 months or 3 months ago, a windstorm took 7 of our tower and moved nicely sort of 200 meters away. Thanks, God, we did not kill anyone.

So this is very technical that comes from the origin of the industry in Europe. And we are doing not because we like it but because in order to make the colocation, you have some technical activity that has to be performed. Sorry to have jumped in...

I think super clear. And then it depends very much on the country. There are countries that have already done most of the works that need to be done, others are still needing to do. So it depends very much on the country. If you want, again, with IR team, we can give you more color on a country-by-country basis, where we believe it will be heading over the next years.

Yes. Correct.

Okay. So I think that's it. I don't think we have anybody else...

Sorry to interrupt, but I thought there was James.

Okay. No, so yes, we do. So the last question comes from James Ratzer. So James, you have the last question before for us in lunch, so -- and the holidays. So please go ahead.

I'll be brief. I was just doing a little back-of-the-envelope calculation, Marco, on what you were saying about the Digi RAN-sharing agreement to make it a 3-digit value over 8 years, that would seem to imply that you're getting about EUR 6,000 per site from Digi RAN sharing? Is that around the right ballpark that you can get?

Sorry, I'm really sorry, James. We don't enter in the details of the contract because it's covered by NDA. But there is a little point, the -- when we calculate the total contract value, the duration of the contract has several clauses of automatic renewal. So you should imagine that this contract -- and they have an agreement with Telefonica of 15 years.

So a good part of our contract, there is a part of the contract with a shorter duration and a part of the contract with a longer duration to be compliant with the terms that Digi has with Telefonica. So it's you should review slightly on the envelope, you should review slightly the duration of the contract. I hope I gave you an hint.

Yes. Have a great summer break.

Okay. Thank you, James.

Okay. So we've come to the end of the questions. As always, the team is here to follow up on any specifics that you'd like to cover. If not, have a wonderful holiday and look forward to speaking summer.

Thanks, everyone.

Thank you. Thank you. Have a good holidays.