this is getting ridiculous, page-15

goo, your analysis is spot on, my point is that the commitments of PPC-1 are not consolidated onto the balance sheet of PWK. Not that they need to be by GAAP.

However, regardless of whether they will be met by the alignment of payments and revenue generating contracts, debt or new equity capital, the commitments have to be funded somehow and the accounts of PWK (read balance sheet) do not reflect that. Otherwise PWK would be in a position to pay out a significantly higher portion of profits as dividends in FY10 but instead they must conserve that cashflow to meet the costs of PPC-1.

My belief is that these future commitments have influenced the sale price as the cashflow generated by PWK, at least in FY10 is already committed, thus it is not 'free' cashflow in the usual sense.