since the alleged management agreement at issue is actually a sully's as a matter of law under ohio supreme court law you're not alleging that they didn't receive any distribution it's just that they did t t has the right to put communications equipment on the ball if it does put that communications equipment on the pole it doesn't have to pay revenue or rent in connection with that and so we wouldn't be obtaining any revenue in connection with c c a t t getting agreement on the whole in addition there are two poles on the site and there are six locations where wireless communication could be only three of those locations are currently three all three are not and so what really happened here it was for the right to market and either put himself on the pole or three other and they got in exchange or revenue the revenue stream that was already out there we think it's a prepayment for those and you're just locations on the poll for which there's no revenue stream at this point but aren't they  they're getting the revenue stream from not from the other news locations so there are three users on one of on hold but there are six locations so they get revenue from two of the users on the whereas i was originally in the master agreement where it says that the reason that ceased roundhouse is entering into this is to market all available space that's those three and you know who is yours locations on the site eighty let's say someone shows up to robe or someone and takes one of those spots yes eighteen c wouldn't get any right you would get a cut and the management people we would not claiming you're entitled to then you would get a car right we would have them ok thank you and also it's also not double dipping because the parties in the master agreement understood that  of these leases it would constitute revenue sharing and they provided for that in the master agreement section or be where they send parties in a case where it does constitute a revenue sharing and in good faith we all agree that the payment of this consideration for this particular site schools i presume does constitute revenue sharing it falls within revenue sharing what you can do in that instance as you can simply change the label and call a management agreement and then you can take it outside the revenue sharing structures in the case that he just calling it a management agreement doesn't work under ohio law because it still has a some ways so it is understood i'm sorry that so this so under your theory the six hundred and ninety six so some of it or maybe all of it is for this empty space that could possibly be used for is that is that a use or is that a sub lease under the section ten or whatever well it likely will depend on exactly the fans of the circumstances in connection with the situation but i think it w pole that is you right now and other vogues if they were going to be on it typically they enter into it some ways right but so you're saying that crown castle well essentially crown castle then c t is subways saying the empty spots on the tower hoping that they can find some someone else to put the tower there has the right any so they're subject to their subways seeing the space on the tower until they find a tenant exclusive right to perform the obligations of an assert and exercise the rights of the lessee under the lease they specifically transferred every right in power that they have to c c eighty and then to couple that you know just because of course the ohio supreme court said that the we sold interests that has the transfer is when you give the right of possession of the land and also exclusive occupation of it six of the management agreement says and by the way we as the lessee to our holdings in a single wire was we covenant to you that we have it in the past and we won't in the future give any other person any right to use their occupy designs on top of that they give the covenant a quiet enjoyment that no eighty in t n t would hinder or interfere so they gave more this isn't a management agreement this is where they give every single right under the out of the lease and by the way undisputed facts in the record are the less the tower holdings has no employees even if one would say got some duties remain acquire certain rights with respect to over nine thousand dollars so our sides if you will i ask that you would i'm sorry to interrupt you but would it really be double dipping if it's a prepayment i mean if you get p for the site you agree you have to share it so your honor i would if we would have to share it depending on what the double dipping is what many and what the payment is for and i think you know if i could just finish my thought for a moment where i was going with it runs out the payments that the inflows and outflows that the less he was going to receive under the ground lease these are how these sites were valued under the master agreement between the corporate parents that said how much money is the lessee going to take in and how much money is the lessee going to have to pay out under the applicable round leases and so what happened was if you subtract the outflows which is the payments that are due for revenue sharing from the inflows then what's left is the right and so that margin over time became the basis of the valuation that north canton is heating in this case and so the reason it has the double dipping is they are taking a share of the lessees margin mean what about the vet was there any value with the other stuff or empty spots have some value right was there any consideration for that or is that just tied up in the management duties and everything else that was exchanged as part of the whole master deal i don't have any i think that does have value and i think that's wise he have wanted to do the deal and i could clarify clear up a misrepresentation by my friend on the other side it's not our position and never has been a put our position that if somebody else were to co locate on the tower north can't would not entitle to a share of that money where i was going with my explanation and what steve byron said the payment was based on the then existing  revenue streams that were coming out and going out so absolutely if seedcamp were to bring another user to the tower then a share of that revenue would have to be shared with north can and we're not we've never said otherwise the issue here is there is no other revenue stream that's not what seacat itself see had is a management company like if you would think of an apartment management company or something along those lines big you davis was very clear in a deposition testimony at pages forty one through forty three right because if you're looking at the lease that section three it grants a non exclusive license to use so there's that it doesn't i don't think you would even have to transfer leasehold interest to transfer a license and certainly seek out has a power of attorney from our holdings to do that and to attempt to bring new users to the tower and indeed one of the reasons for this transaction is as you might imagine it is easier for someone who is a site manager like a crown castle  subsidiaries to attract new users to a tower than it is for eighty and eighty to get it compared to co locate on its tower so there was a value added by going to a company like ground castle and the idea is tower is a license see right there not a lessee was i think it could be written either way your honor the pending on the underlying agreement and that was why i think that section ten b was written the way it was they wanted to  in all its forms i find i do find the underlying lease a little bit odd because they there it's so police it's called the we but they use what the lessee is allowed to do seems to be fairly strictly circumscribed in section three in other words the district judge said that if you wanted to sublet a shed on the property or a billboard or something on the pole if that's it you could do that but but i'm curious could you do that as a use in other words could you will allow somebody else to use the property to have a storage facility and then taken the money or would that be prohibited by the lease because it doesn't fall under section three dollars and that's an interesting point i don't think eighty has ever attempted to do that i don't know that it was necessary for the district court to go there i think what we're saying is the license that was granted was only to put equipment up by the tower and indeed that's the sole way you make money off of these cellular towers is by somebody putting equipment on the tower and then you get a revenue stream now there are other forms of broadband type stuff that could be put on the towers so if for some reason you needed something that was a pertinent to the tower in order to be able to operate that other equipment and that somehow hypothetically required a shared or some other space i think the least language is broad enough that would allow that kind of incidental operational stuff to be on the grounds but you're absolutely right that the use of start is sharply circumscribed under  under the lease and our point is what seacat is doing is not using the property as they used as contemplated under the lease is it and is it so you use your position and see what seacat is doing is maintaining the property under the other one the other is always provision that obligates the west see to keep the property in a certain condition is that seacat is doing is permissible under the least because the lessee would have been permitted or would have been obligated to do do it that's correct section seven c of the lease obligates originally new cingular and how through their managerial point nancy had to keep the premises in good condition and so our position is that seacat is doing exactly that and the money that was prepaid has nothing to existing users of the tower over the life of the lease if we had to put a number to that figure what would that figure look like once you back out all payments due to the last or for revenue sharing and so that was there was a spreadsheet exhibit twenty seven to the environs deposition they went through a very detailed inflows and outflows and of course it's not just those payments but also the ground rent that is due north canada the lease lease and the revenue sharing that was due for those existing uses the two parties came up with a figure based on the life of the lease and that figure is what more can is seeking in this case and so to circle back to where i started with judge donald our point is that's double dipping because what they're trying to do is get the lessee share of its future revenue streams under the lease and they're not entitled to those under the language of the least arguments or the language transactional remains you know in terms of whether or not this is in fact a sublease all the documents say over and over and over again that no leasehold interest transfers the way i would suggest going through if you want to explore that issue is further start with the master agreement if you look at the master agreement that's a record nine thousand and thirty nine dollars section one dollar specifies as an excluded as the leasehold interest except to the extent in section one make the same point that's record ninety three and sixty if you don't i also want to push back on this point that you know there's some sort of scheme or something whereby we were trying to keep this from being revenue sharing and this is where this comes and if you look at the management agreement you will see that the fixed asset number which is the way this works and you know the context of the deal for nine thousand different cell towers the biggest asset number appear for this site and you can asset number by the way it's the barron's deposition of page forty five before this site appears in exhibit eighty two to the management why is that significant it's because this is what is called a pre lease site why does that matter well if you look back the deposition at the definitions excuse me in the met in that master agreement you'll see it's a pretty lease site because there had to be a consent obtained to actually make this a lease and could have the consent need to come from you need to come from or you can and there was a eighteen month period in section four of the master agreement for that consent to be filled out and it never happened and so what we're hearing now is you know after north can never signed off on making this a leas they're now saying oh well it should have been a lease site all around anyways and that's not only inconsistent with the back they didn't sign the consent it's also inconsistent with the letter sent in september two thousand and fourteen where they focused solely on use as the argument that they were making for why they were entitled to revenue sharing it's inconsistent with the subsequent nd amendment to the lease and the establishment to begin which contemplated an express we recognize that she can't was performing in a management role and that our holdings was the lessee and did not account for any money as a result of these managerial duties and i really think that this argument only turned up once after big davis's deposition it became clear that what seacat was doing in no way shape or form constituted a use under section three of the lease so at the end of the day what you have is a company that was paid for a future less revenue streams to do things like rape or we can make sure the fence is maintained and process the invoices and none of this arises to revenue sharing under the agreement if there tower then yes north can will be entitled to revenue sharing for that new user but no you new user has appeared on the tower yet and at this point whether ceding is part of the that you could co locate on one of the four openings did crown castle pay for that opportunity that's not part of the six hundred and ninety six dollars right across i would say they require that opportunity your honor the only thing i would push back on to say paid for it because of the analysis there is a large to herat big year and then there were valuations that were very complex and detailed done and they were based on existing revenue streams that acquire it absolutely i there a document i can point to that say paid a specific amount of money for that no ok i mean that seems like there were there were a lot of revenue streams and there does seem to be more detail here than i thought in terms of the way the revenue streams and the  assets kind of track each other but if there isn't one so that one i mean i assume that they knew it was valuable so they knew it was valuable exactly and that's why they wanted this right and if there is a future co located or that money will be shared but below that money and eighteen dollars she wouldn't get any of that money right it would be the crown castle or seacat or some entity that paid for that right and then they would share it with north canton but eighteen t itself would never see any money at it davis deposition does not show that they were just a few little maiden's items instead she also testifies that part of her job was to communicate with the worst or that would be the school and any other rd party from doing any action in connection with that lease site they only want at this point they can take action in connection with the school site is c c a t t so actually it's incorrect the lease we get a payment streams in connection with the mobile in brize and we don't get any payment stream in connection with the a t m t entity that's on the whole the very person so you know that would be the and they go out tomorrow and get spread to be a co located or are you saying that you're not entitled to any share of the sprint revenue for the next twenty years or whatever it would d be no we would have been prepaid  pay more or that prepayment somehow it would exceed the prepayment but no your honor we would not be entitled to that i would use number and whether it was more which it i would suppose if you have three  you measured their stream out for thirty years and it was it exceeded you know you know that amount only in that way and maybe it's not possible to actually count really but typically when we would not get paid because just like eighteen thousand we'd be pre paid for that thirty years dream and in addition it truly is a sublease and the narrative that was  wheezes and exclusive opportunity to do it all obligation to take all actions in addition there's a purchase option never seen a true management agreement how can a quiet enjoyment there's no management be paid at all