I'm fine with what Leicester has done, they are in charge of their own interests and can evaluate the risks they are taking as appropriate. I think it's highly risky for them, but that's their choice to make.
I responded to your initially saying we should be concerned about what we've done to them here. I don't agree at all. They are not a completely innocent party and we would not have completely blindsided them here. They're not victims, they just made choices. City should not be afraid of hurting the feelings of others and anyone who has ever negotiated in the business world knows you do not ever hurt someone's feelings offering them 50 million pounds. These are not schoolchildren or inexperienced negotiators, they know the game they are playing.
In terms of our "pattern", we very clearly try to box off players in order to avoid ending up in multi party competitive negotiations. This has probably saved us 10s of millions in various deals over the years as the party we are negotiating with cannot bring another group in to drive up the price. It simplifies the negotiation for us as it becomes more a matter of getting to a valuation than it does trying to intuit whether other competitors are offering more or less.
when viewed through that lens, the most important thing we need is to be able to walk away from deals. I don't think either of the recent cases are examples ,but it would honestly be intelligent for City to create negotiations they intend to walk away from very publicly just to ensure that when we enter these discussions where it's only a matter of fee we can put pressure on the other party via the threat of walking away. The second you lose that you lose the negotiation.
