3 ms·
> If you start to try to introduce fluffy subjective nonsense that you cannot back up with facts into the discussion I get that, but labelling someone a liar i
by seanwilson 5y ago
> If you start to try to introduce fluffy subjective nonsense that you cannot back up with facts into the discussion
I get that, but labelling someone a liar is much stronger than this.
- traceroute66 5y agoI guess we could talk till the cows come home about interpretations of English language and things that get said in the heat of the moment. Ultimately in this story I think the crux lies in the guy's failure to take the "work out the details with Eddy" hint. That was the real point of no return, everything else after that was just a case of when, not if, the things would fall apart. Eddy (or the Eddy like character in other scenarios) is the guy who has more time for you than the CEO and is likely more willing to give you more rope to hang yourself in terms of exploring things like valuation boundaries. By seeking to go above the Eddy in the room and negotiate "right there" with the CEO in the room you are only opening yourself up to being eaten for breakfast. The CEO has a million things on their mind and likely doesn't have the time or mental capacity for the details. By openly seeking to go above the Eddy in the room, you are openly both stepping on Eddy's toes and potentially sending a message to the CEO that you don't trust the Eddy. Thinking you can close an M&A deal then and there with the CEO just like you would sell a widget is a bit arrogant and naïve.
- mnl 5y agoExactly, it could have happened anywhere but this is Jobs in 2008. If he's bought you already, leaving the details to Eddy, and you basically announce that Eddy won't cut it you're asking for a reality check right there. Then it's this if in a hole, stop digging.