[I searched a bit here but didn't immeadiately find the answer to my question - please do point me in the right direction if I missed a previous relevant thread]

I'm looking at a (stock) deal with a signficant component of real estate on the balance sheet - call it 40% real estate / 60% "company" for the overall valuation. Obviously this makes it a capital-heavy deal, constraining financeabiltiy and weighing on returns.
The seller has a strong preference to sell the real estate for a clean-cut rather than somehow retain it / carve it out and then lease it to the company.
Sale-and-leaseback with 3rd party investor could obviously be option in theory - but it feels tricky in this case given the quite specific nature of the real estate (significant costs would need to be incurred to convert the real estate for general commercial real estate purposes (not to mention fiscal implications of carving the real estate out of the company e.g.) - similarly, the company would face substantial costs in switching to another property).

The seller has provided what look like credible and reasonable valuation reports, based on a customary cap rate based methodology etc. But in my view these are very theoretical given the deep linkage between the real estate and the business highlighted above.


I thus see myself as a "forced buyer" of the real estate, to provide a clean solution for the seller.
In my view this means:
1 (EBITDA-based company valuation (adjusting for theoretical rental cost of course))
+
1 (theoretical real estate value)
Should not equal 2
Whether it's 1.8, 1.6, etc - I don't know and obviously there will be no rule here but rather it's a negotiation topic.

I'm wondering what the right way to approach this / build a line of argument is.
Anybody with experience in similar situations / any advice would be much appreciated.
Also pointers re investors who could actually be interested in a sale-and-leaseback deal in such a context, specifically in Switzerland.