top of page

By:

Divyaa Advaani 

2 November 2024 at 8:58:38 am

The Deal Died Before Negotiations

The terms were right. The numbers made sense. The opportunity was genuinely good for both sides. And yet it did not close. Most founders, when a deal or partnership falls through, conduct a thorough post-mortem on the wrong things. They revisit the proposal. They question the pricing. They wonder if the timing was off or the market conditions unfavourable. They examine everything except the one variable that was present in every conversation, every meeting and every moment the other party was...

The Deal Died Before Negotiations

The terms were right. The numbers made sense. The opportunity was genuinely good for both sides. And yet it did not close. Most founders, when a deal or partnership falls through, conduct a thorough post-mortem on the wrong things. They revisit the proposal. They question the pricing. They wonder if the timing was off or the market conditions unfavourable. They examine everything except the one variable that was present in every conversation, every meeting and every moment the other party was forming their judgment. Themselves. The uncomfortable truth about deals that die in the final stages — after interest has been established, terms discussed and both sides have invested significant time — is that they almost never die because of the numbers. They die because of doubt. And doubt, at this level of business, is almost always created by a gap between how capable someone appears on paper and how commanding they actually are in person. Here is how that gap shows up. The founder enters the room with strong credentials. Their business is real, their track record solid, their offering genuinely valuable. But something about how they carry themselves — how they communicate, how they handle questions they do not immediately know the answer to, how they respond to pushback, whether they fill silence comfortably or nervously creates a quiet uncertainty in the mind of the person across the table. Not enough to walk away immediately. Just enough to hesitate. To ask for more time. To come back with a revised term that was never really about the term at all. That hesitation is not a negotiation tactic. It is a verdict about a person. The founders who close consistently not occasionally, not when the deal is easy, but consistently across different partners, different rooms, different levels of scrutiny share one quality that has nothing to do with the quality of their business. They are congruent. The person in the room matches the company on the document. The confidence in the conversation matches the credibility on paper. There is no gap to fall into, no uncertainty to take root, no quiet question that lingers after the meeting ends. That congruence is not charisma. It is not charm or aggression or years of sales training. It is a personal brand built with enough deliberateness that it communicates the same thing in every room, to every person, under every level of scrutiny and pressure. It says without words — this is who I am, this is what I stand for, and you would be making a sound decision to proceed with me. Think about the last significant deal or partnership that did not close the way you expected. Play back those conversations honestly not what was said, but how you showed up in them. Were you the version of yourself that your business deserves to be represented by? Or was there a gap somewhere — between the business you have built and the personal authority with which you were presenting it to the room? Because here is what the other party was actually experiencing. They were not evaluating your company in isolation. They were evaluating you as the person who would be their partner, their counterpart, the face of this entire arrangement in every difficult conversation still to come. And if what they saw gave them any reason to hesitate — however small, however unspoken, however quickly dismissed in the moment — that hesitation became the real reason the deal did not close. The terms were never really the problem. I work with founders at exactly this intersection where business strength and personal brand need to meet for the right deals to actually happen and close. If a significant opportunity has recently slipped through in a way that still does not fully make sense to you, that confusion is worth a direct conversation. Book here: https://www.calendly.com/divyaaadvaani/founderbrand-audit — Divyaa Advaani, Personal Branding Strategist (The writer is a personal branding expert. She has clients from 14+ countries. Views personal.)

Knives out in legislature

Writer: Abhijit Mulye
Abhijit Mulye
Mar 20, 2025
3 min read

Updated: Mar 21, 2025

Disha Salian

Mumbai: Death of celebrity manager Disha Salian in 2020 once again rocked the Maharashtra legislature on Thursday. While cabinet ministers Nitesh Rane and Shambhuraj Desai demanded that Shiv Sena (UBT) leader Aditya Thackeray be arrested in the case, BJP MLA Amit Satam in the assembly and another BJP member Chitra Wagh in the council demanded that the report of SIT to probe Salian’s death be made public.


Incidentally, amidst repeated disruptions in both the houses, some members from the treasury benches were seen speaking in favour of Aditya Thackeray, while Shiv Sena (UBT) members like Adv Anil Parab were seen supporting the BJP members’ demand that the report of the SIT probe be made public. In addition, there were allegations and counter allegations and personal accusations among members from the treasury and opposition benches which led to heated debate on occasions.


The opposition termed the attempts from the treasury benches to link Shiv Sena (UBT) leader Aditya Thackeray’s name in the case, as a ‘conspiracy’.


“I think this matter has gone to the court. We have no idea what he (Disha’s father) has said, but Aaditya Thackeray is a mature leader, a young leader. The Bharatiya Janata Party is conspiring to defame him by putting pressure on him. We don’t need to answer to this conspiracy. The court will answer,” Ambadas Danve said.


Earlier in the day, when the house gathered for the business, Minister of State for Home appraised the assembly of the status in this case. “SIT has been formed to probe in the case. Their report has not been received as yet. However, the government shall act according to directives from the court,” the minister told the house.


Another BJP minister Nitesh Rane, however, said that since Satish Salian has levelled allegations against an MVA minister, that leader be treated like a common person and that everybody should be treated equally before the law. Shiv Sena minister Shambhuraj Desai too supported the demand. “Since the allegations are grave, the person in question should be immediately arrested and the case be investigated,” he said.


Later, while speaking to media in the legislature premises, Rane asked Uddhav Thackeray to come clean on the issue. “If they say that we are politicizing the issue, Uddhav Thackeray should also tell the people why he had called, not just once but twice, to the then union minister Narayan Rane urging him to save his son?” Rane said.


He also accused the opposition of shying away from coming clean on the issue. “If they feel that we are not telling the truth, they should say so in the house. But they are shying away from doing so. Bhaskar Jadhav, who is always aggressive, was nowhere to be seen when this issue came up in the house. Sunil Prabhu too escaped the house under the pretext of a phone call. I challenge them to say that whatever I said on the issue is wrong,” Rane said.


He also said that Aditya Thackeray should resign on moral grounds till his name is cleared in the case.


BJP MLA Amit Satam demanded that the details of the SIT probe be made public so that the people would know if the probe is headed in right direction.


Interestingly, while the ruling parties were targeting the opposition in the case, senior BJP leader Sudhir Mungantiwar surprised all with his unexpected support to Thackerays. “I do not have any evidences in the case. But if her father has made any fresh allegations that needs to be investigated thoroughly. The assembly can discuss the issue at length tomorrow. In the meanwhile, members like Rane, who seem to have some evidences in the case should hand them over to the investigating agencies and help the probe,” he told the house.


Shiv Sena’s Sanjay Gaikwad and Sheetal Mhatre too toed the line and demanded that more and more evidences should come forth.


Similarly, when members of treasury benches were pushing for revealing the details of the probe till date to the public, Shiv Sena (UBT) member Anil Parab supported the demand. “Doing that shall conclusively prove the innocence of Aditya Thackeray,” he said.

Comments

bottom of page