Alfred C. Liggins: Yeah. And we’ve got a bit of podcast business, but the Cumulus and Odyssey models and — are podcast driven. iHeart has got their iHeartMedia streaming platform they’ve got a big podcasting business. We’re much more of a publisher. And then Townsquare does digital services, right? So they act as a local small digital advertising agency for small, medium sized clients in the markets that they operate in. So our digital business is different than everybody else’s. With that said, it’s benefiting from still demand. We’ve got the largest African-American targeted audience in the space. So we’re the scale player in that space. And I don’t know what the prognosis is going forward. I hope it continues to remain profitable.
We got to figure out how to see if we can grow that margin. Digital publishing is a tough business. You can see from BuzzFeed and Cox and a bunch of these other — and Vice, they’re having a tough way to go. We’ve been doing better. We’ve got to figure out how to manage through that. But it’s a better business than the podcasting business. Yeah, so in my viewpoint.
Matthew Sandschafer: Great. Thank you.
Peter D. Thompson: Thank you, Matt.
Operator: We’ll go next to the — pardon me.
Alfred C. Liggins: Yes, it’s 11:06, and so we got time for one more question, operator.
Operator: We’ll go to the line of [Marilyn Pereira] (ph) with Bank of America. Go ahead.
Unidentified Analyst: Thank you for taking my call and squeezing me in. Most of them have been answered. But quick question. You had mentioned BET at the top of the call. So any other information on that or thoughts or what that could potentially like in terms of the impact on leverage?
Alfred C. Liggins: I mean, it’s a competitive process. We’re under an NDA. I just figured some — people ask us if we’re interested in it. So I just figured I’d mentioned that we are in the process. I couldn’t — we’re not far enough along on anything at this point in time to comment and we wouldn’t be allowed to comment anyway. But I just get tired of people asking me, hey, are you guys looking at this. And so I decided to admit that we were, but that’s all the information I can give.
Unidentified Analyst: And then just a quick kind of reframe, given the current environment overall secular and cyclical, how high would you be willing to have your leverage in the current environment or what you kind of see the environment to be over the next year?
Alfred C. Liggins: Look, we like our leverage 4 times or below. We like it here. If we have to write $100 million plus check at the — over the next 12 months, for the casino, that could change our leverage profile. I’m sure Peter has the numbers, but we have — $100 million goes out the door with no cash flow coming in for, call it 24 to 30 months, is going to raise your leverage. But I’m also assuming that we — win a casino referendum that we’re probably going to get some credit for that in our equity value and who knows, maybe we’ll raise some more equity, don’t know how we’ll think about that. But I would suffice it to say, we sleep good at night when our leverage is 4 times, below 4 times, we like that.
Peter D. Thompson: It probably pops up above 4 times in Q1, excluding the pro forma for MGM because the cash wasn’t received till Q2. So I guess we’ll get pro forma numbers in Q1. But excluding the pro forma, it is probably north of 4 times, and it drops down hopefully mid 3s. And as Alfred said, we are hoping to finish about 3.7 times this year. And if I look at our long-range plan, it’s out in the low 3s and eventually in the mid 2s, that’s assuming we can have our plan.
