Tiger Woods: Amicable Separation from His Sponsors The article with date of January 21, 2010, and written by Jeremy Telman; informs the public that to the recent scandals involving the professional gulf player Tiger Woods with adultery he was in negotiation with one of his sponsors, specifically AT&T. The situation being, the sponsors wanted to be released of all ties with Woods without been required to pay Woods any fees they may still owe him under the contract (The New York Times, 2010).The New York Times reported the company representing Woods has his approval to let corporate sponsors out of the contracts if they wish, without the need to pay fees owed. The New York Post suggest that because of the fame of Woods, when the contracts were written the sponsors might have left out the moral clause allowing them to drop Woods, or that the sponsors may have written a moral clause with limited applicability. Therefore, the sponsors needed Woods to be the one to allow them to leave. Woods allowed his sponsors to drop him because he understood the ramifications of his actions, and he preferred to salvage the relationship he had with his sponsors by letting them leave without having to go to court (The New York Times, 2010). Woods did not need more bad press. Therefore, he chose to negotiate in an Integrative or Interest-base bargaining process, which is a win-win negotiation process; AT&T wins because they separate themselves of all the bad press Wood has brought upon himself and the company does not need to pay Woods any money. However, Woods wins because he preserves the relationship he had with his sponsors by granting their wishes of severing themselves from Woods, and furthermore he has left the doors open for future business relations given he did not demanded to be paid the money he was owed. In the previous negotiation situation Tiger Woods proved to be a good negotiator by choosing not to risk more bad press, and implementing a win-win outcome for himself and for his sponsors. BP Denies Florida More Ad Money The article dated July 14, 2010, states how BP Company, which is responsible for the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico had awarded Florida Government 25 million to run marketing ads to clear Florida beaches from the oil spill. However, the article states the money is about to run out, and how the Florida Governor Charlie Christ has requested from BP Company to grant Florida 50 million to run more adds (Ray, 2010). The governor wants to run more adds to make sure people across the nation understand that the oil spill is not in Florida beaches; therefore, busting up Florida tourism once again. However, BP decided not to give the request any consideration or room for negotiation, they simply denied the request the moment they received it. Furthermore, Bp questions in the denial letter to Florida the effectiveness of the previous ads. BP encourages Florida to run adds locally, but the governor explains the people who come to visit the state every year for vacation are