Why did Look owners seek Tapie?

As I'm watching "Class Act" on Netflix, I'm suddenly back with Look bindings and its demise in the hands of the megalomaniac Bernard Tapie. 

Back in 1983, when Look was in big trouble with an $8 million loss for sales of $20 million and a debt of $27 million, mostly held by the French bank BNP, Roland Cattin, the Beyl’s son in law was sent to Tahiti in July 1983 to meet with Bernard Tapie in order, one might think, “to save the day” or see if some miracle was possible in the hands of the French Jesus-Christ of business. 

Talk about going to the Devil in hope to secure one’s entry into Heaven! The point of that piece is not how bad Tapie was, we know it already, but why did Jean and Huguette Beyl not look for a solution closer to their industry and without the peril that Tapie represented to any troubled enterprise?

In particular, why didn’t they turn to Rossignol’s Laurent Boix-Vives who knew them well and was one company that offered $15 million in 1987, just before it would be gobbled up from Tapie by Blum the owner of Ebel watches for $40 million! Rossignol would have provided the Beyls would have provided the Beyls with an honorable exit, unlike the hellish transition Tapie had in store for them. 

If not Rossignol, then the Beyls should have turned to Alois Rohrmoser (Atomic) or Joseph Fischer (Fischer/Kästle) and probably many more potential candidates. Who got the idea to travel to the opposite side of the globe to go and beg Tapie? Roland Cattin? Madame Beyl? Her husband?

Didn’t they knew the man was a predator? Shouldn’t they have looked at Tapie’s current collection of acquisitions, made a few phone calls to see how these acquisitions unfolded in reality, and do some kind of due-diligence? 

This was until now totally mystifying to me, but I was about to find the answer to my question… (To be continued)