Thread by @SwedishRumble

💣🚨New improved bid from 9-2! Good news? Who is in the lead? A word of optimism including a little caution and some other thoughts in this 🧵, tag along! 👇 (1/n) dailymail.co.uk/sport/football…

For anyone wanting #GlazersOut, it's good news. The previous reported bids have been serious but neither have perhaps been as good as reported. Nobody want a penny more than necessary paid to the Glazers, but without improved bids, the risk for delay has been significant. (2/n)

What is reportedly offered? We all know that the Glazers will take the offer that pays the most to them. The new 9-2 offer seem to put it in the same ball park as Ineos' offer -- but the Glazers would get 100% of the money directly, while with Ineos offer would 1bn later. (3/n)

There is some -- is "gibberish" too strong word? -- out there claiming that Ineos offer would NOT mean a full sale and would allow the Glazers to stay. As made clear by the FT article, it is a standarlized earn-out construction resulting in Ineos buying 51% now and 18%... (4/n)

...over "coming years". To evaluate 9-2's offer, we need to decide if this is positive or negative for the Glazers. The assumption -- must (!) -- be that it is a concession by Glazers to Ineos. (5/n)

The sooner you get paid, the better. It's just 18% of the price that will be paid out over 1-3 years. Could this price be dependent on for example MUFC's turnover? Yes, but it is very reasonable to assume that nothing drastic is happening to our turnover in 1-3 years.(6/n)

If the Glazers knew something very positive nobody else did, they wouldn't sell. Could our turnover be 30% higher in 3 years? Sure, it could. But if that means that the purchase price is increased with 30% -- it is "just" 30% on the remaining 18%, and...(7/n)

...the gain vs. investing a purchase price paid in full directly in interest bearing bonds is minimal. I would like to say that there is a very small risk that the Glazers will -- not -- accept 9-2's bid because Ineos bid pays out the purchase price over time. (8/n)

Again, in all likelihood, this is what it is all about. "Who pays the Glazers the most?", period. And 3.6bn today is better than 2.6bn today and a 1bn in 1-3 years. It's probably better than 2.6bn today and 1.3bn in 1-3 years. (9/n)

But with that said, we do not know how high 9-2's bid actually is, this is what Keegan's article say (who is credible in relation to 9-2). If 9-2 raised their offer from say a 4.9bn EV valuation to a 5.25bn EV valuation -- it is probably not better. So watch this space. (10/10)

UPDATE: The "watch this space" part hit the head on the nail, due to below report, see following tweets. lequipe.fr/Football/Actua…

If the new improved offer is "just" for 5.8bn EUR -- which exactly is 5.0bn GBP -- it is a little concerning against the above background. If the reports on Ineos' bid valuing the club at 6bn is true, it seem like 9-2's bid could pay the Glazers less...(11/n)

But, there is definitely room for error going by the limited information we have. When talking about these sums, "Enterprise Value" is always used in M&A, just like when we talk about what a club paid for a player, you include transfer fee but not salary. Why? (12/n)

Purchase price is Enterprise Value - debt + cash. Why use EV? The value of an entity on a "cash and debt free basis" is consistent -- while the debt/cash change from day to day. We cannot be sure that nothing is lost in translation here re. 9-2 and Ineos bid. (13/n)

If 9-2's bid is €5.8bn/£5bn in purchase price (i.e. using an EV of app. €6.7bn/£5.8bn), it is more competitive (if the reported figures on Ineos bid are somewhat correct). (14/14)

Further reports supporting the Le Equipe report:

https://twitter.com/JacobsBen/status/1666422990945284096?s=20

"Total package (with pledged investment) offered is around $7.5bn". $7.5bn=£6bn. £1bn investment. £5bn for the club and the debt. Of which the Glazers get £2.9bn. Hate to be the bearer of bad news (for many), but this is more or less Chelsea money for MUFC. (16/n)

Boehly paid 2.5bn and pledged to invest 1.75bn. Anyone wanting full control of MUFC, could bid over 9-2 by paying the Glazers more than 2.9bn. The pledged investment is app. 1.78bn. In addition, 9-2 would pay 1.3bn for the NYSE shares, but as FT said:

Update 2: Another uncertainty of course regards how high Ineos' bid actually is. The "first" 6bn report comes from The Sunday Times. Sky has also reported that the sale of the rest of the shares would take place 2026. It states that it could "reach" up to 6bn. This obviously… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…