EuroMouse project

         

In this final negotiation role-play I was part of the people who had been mistreated and had some demands to make. It was nice to be on this side for a change. I was one of the mayors of the 4 towns surrounding the EuroMouse construction site. We were all angry because of the noise and increase in traffic caused by the construction site; we were upset that we were not a part of the initial negotiation when the government sold the land to the American executives from the Mouse company, and also because the government bought it for 1€ per m² from us and it sold it for 3€ per m², making a huge profit.

The negotiation was led by government officials who were trying to hear both sides and make sure the project continued because it would bring economic prosperity to a rural area.

The Mouse company heard our complaints and before addressing them fully they wanted to make sure we were on board with the project and if we believed it would be a good thing for the cities. We said yes of course, because even with all the nuisance this project would greatly develop our communities and employ people.

Our concerns were:

- We felt left out of the initial negotiation.

- Administrative nightmare.

- Constituents not happy: the land that was sold was good agricultural land, that would continue to generate revenue for the farmers if they hadn’t been expropriated by the government.

- Community afraid of becoming like the towns in Florida, only existing to serve the tourists that come to EuroMouse.

Our demands were:

- Annual fixed financial compensation ($1 million minimum and $3 million maximum) or in the form of a pay-roll tax (but this was to be avoided).

- Community planner from the government

- Extra administrative workers (whose salaries would be paid for by either the government or Mouse)

What we offered in return:

- A positive press release.

- We would make sure to appease the farmers so they wouldn’t block the roads and the construction.

After several rounds of negotiation, and several breaks to re-evaluate from all 3 parties, we arrived at a deal:

1. The government would provide us with a community planner.

2. The government would provide us with extra administrative workers that would be paid for by the government and Mouse (half each).

3. The government also said they were building new roads that led to the construction site with the profit from the land sale, so the traffic would not go through our cities in a near future.

5. We also got to be a part of the quarterly meetings.

6. We proposed to Mouse that our farmers could supply EuroMouse once it is finished and operating (that would mean supplying them with locally grown produce; this would be another argument to appease the farmers given that they would keep their traditional activity and increase their revenue). They accepted, and agreed to exclusivity.

7. Financial compensation: we left this point for last because of its sensitive nature.

Mouse asked why we were still asking for compensation after we got all our demands; we said that without it we wouldn’t be able to appease our farmers (we decided we would use this money to give subsidies for those who saw their property prices go up so that they would be able to pay their taxes; the government officials also offered to talk with the Ministry of Economy so he would lower property tax but that is not likely to happen, since this is an isolated case).

The compensation is also to make up for the fact we weren’t a part of the initial deal.

We both agreed straight away in an annual payment instead of a pay-roll tax. However our initial offer ($3 million) was too high. Mouse’s counter-offer was $950,000, but that was $50,000 short for us. So we countered that with $1,2 million. Mouse then changed its mind and considered the pay-roll tax of either 0.5% or 1% (which would mean either $0.75 million fixed or 0.50 million fixed respectively, with the possibility of rising to between $1.25 million to $2 million). We preferred to not take the risk and we made a final counter-offer of an annual payment of $1 million, which they accepted.

I am glad with the result of this negotiation because everybody was happy in the end, and because it was a calm negotiation, where everyone got a chance to speak. I decided to stay back and let Natasha lead the negotiation from our side, but I found myself intervening more than I wish I had, even though she did a great job. I was pleasantly surprised to see that the government officials were supporting us. And I think Joy was able to balance a cooperative side with a more demanding side quite well: her question about why we still wanted the financial compensation when we had already gotten all our demands caught me off guard.

Another point that pleased me happened during the preparation for the negotiation, with me and the other mayors. My instructions, as well as the Mayor of Coupvray’s instructions, were to be reluctant to share the financial compensation with Bailly and Magny in case it came in the form of a pay-roll tax. However, right from the start we decided that, first, we wanted annual payment, and second, that we wanted to share it equally. If Mouse had been adamant in getting the pay-roll tax, and if we had followed the instructions by the rule, this negotiation would not have been as successful as it turned out. I am glad all parties were able to see the big picture and how the project would benefit everyone in the end (and the proof is the Disneyland Paris park that exists today, which is quite prosperous and employs a lot of people – even I worked there and I got to dress up!)