Lets break down the bids based on the assumption that the widely reported 5bn for 9-2 and 6bn from Ineos are correct.
From the Glazers POV
With 9-2's bid being based on a 5bn EV valuation, it pays the Glazers
2.9bn.
With Ineos bid being capped at a 6bn EV valuation, it could pay the Glazers up to
3.6bn, of which app.
2.3bn is paid today, and up to app.
1.3bn is paid in 2026.
What is better, (a)
2.9bn today or (b)
2.3bn today and
1.3bn in three years? (b) is clearly better. .If the Glazers get a 10% yearly return on the extra 600m they get from 9-2 today, Ineos bid is still better with 400m. If they get 20% yearly return, the difference is 170m.
It seems like Ineos bid is variable regarding the remaining "18%". The impact of the variable part will not be massive. It is possible to with a fair amount of certainty forecast what our revenue will be in 3 years time. The UK TV deals runs to 2029 right. In the US, it runs to 2028. We won't all be watching the PL with VR glasses in 36 months time. But sure, we can do a lot better without the Glazers point of view. If the Glazers go with Ineos -- the variable part should be fairly obtainable.
From the fans POV
9-2 would pay the debt and has pledged to invest 1bn in the club. That totals
app. 1.78bn. It is very similar to what Boehly has pledged to invest in Chelsea FC (1.75bn).
How much will Ineos invest in the club? I don't think there has been any report on that. What we can do is look at Ineos bid for Chelsea:
We got to assume that Ineos in no event will be willing to in total invest -- less -- in MUFC than in CFC. With Ineos bid for the shares of MUFC being 3.6bn, we must be able to assume that Ineos would be willing to invest
900m into the club. This match their total 4.5bn commitment for Chelsea.
Is 900m enough? No, I don't think it is. I won't expand on the math in this post but having looked at the numbers in the past, to afford a new/rebuilt OT we probably need up towards 1.5bn -- at least -- for it to not have an impact on our transfer budget. I am not surprised by 9-2's pledge of a total of 1.78bn, because that is a very reasonable number. There is no point in contributing like 2.5-3bn to the club, we couldn't spend the money over 10 years due to FFP anyway.
So hopefully Ineos is willing to invest more in MUFC than in CFC. I think it is good business for Ineos to do that. We are a bigger club, so the upside is higher. But we just have no reports in this regard so its anyone's guess.