In the late 1990s and early 2000s, European telecommunications was changing quickly. New fibre networks were being built, markets were liberalising and new operators were trying to create alternatives to infrastructure controlled by long-established incumbents.

I joined iAXIS during that period, before the company was acquired by Dynegy.

The commercial environment was exciting because the opportunity was large, but the risk was large as well. Capacity agreements were long-term. Infrastructure investment was substantial. Customers were making commitments that could affect their own economics for years.

That changes a negotiation.

Nobody signs because the presentation was good

In smaller sales, enthusiasm can sometimes carry a deal surprisingly far.

In a long-term agreement worth millions, enthusiasm is irrelevant unless it is backed by credibility.

The customer is asking different questions.

Will the network exist when we need it? Can this supplier deliver? What happens if the market changes? Is the pricing sustainable? What risk are we accepting by depending on a relatively new operator?

The salesperson's job is not simply to make the upside attractive.

It is to make the risk understandable.

Large B2B deals are not won when the buyer becomes excited. They are won when the buyer becomes comfortable with the risk.

The real negotiation starts before the contract

By the time lawyers are exchanging contract language, many of the most important commercial decisions have already been shaped.

Who is the internal sponsor? Who could stop the deal? What does success look like for the customer? What assumptions are built into their business case? Which parts of the agreement are genuinely important and which are negotiating positions?

If you discover those things only when the contract arrives, you are late.

That is why complex sales require more than a relationship with procurement or one senior executive. You have to understand the decision system around the agreement.

Price is only one variable

Large negotiations often become described afterwards by one number: the value of the contract.

Inside the negotiation, the value is made up of many moving parts.

Term, volume, timing, service commitments, infrastructure availability, payment structures and risk allocation can matter as much as the headline price.

A concession can be cheap for one side and extremely valuable for the other. Good negotiation is often about finding those asymmetries rather than simply splitting the difference.

Long-term agreements are bets on the future

A multi-year telecom agreement is not only a purchase. Both sides are making assumptions about what the market will look like later.

That means the quality of a negotiation depends partly on the quality of the business thinking behind it.

You have to understand what would make the agreement attractive today and still defensible tomorrow.

No contract can eliminate uncertainty. The objective is to structure enough alignment that both parties still have reasons to make the relationship work when circumstances change.

Credibility compounds

One thing I learned early is that credibility in a complex negotiation is cumulative.

You earn it by knowing your own economics. By not pretending to know something you do not. By bringing the right technical person into the room when the question becomes technical. By following through on small commitments before asking the other side to make a large one.

And sometimes by saying no.

A supplier who agrees to everything does not necessarily look flexible. In a serious negotiation, they can look unsafe.

The biggest lesson

Across my career I have negotiated in telecoms, infrastructure, procurement, trade and partnerships. The sectors changed, but the pattern remained remarkably consistent.

Complex commercial agreements happen when three things become true at the same time: the economics work, the risk is acceptable and the people believe the other side will do what it says.

You can improve the presentation.

You can improve the closing technique.

But if one of those three conditions is missing, the deal is not ready.

That is what a $30 million negotiation actually looks like from the inside.