Okay. So I have heard many timesto do the research, so being bored out of my mind, in lockdown I did. I am inno way advocating for the amount of money that we the company has shelled out inmanagement, or do I think it's always been reasonable. I'm just finding myselfgetting so worked up and emotional about this dumpster fire of a company, thatI thought I'll just go to the numbers and see what adds up.
So what I found was-(Mean Salary/Fees 2007-2020)
MT- $164,539.50 (note- 2015 he was paid 36,334 and in 2018 hewas paid 53,994 and in 2019 he wasn't paid anything).TC- $74,53846.15RH- $68,030.37 (12 years-ret 2017)CI- $45,293.75 (pre 80k CEOpackage) (4 years)GH- $40,442 (2 years)
In gross numbers APG has spent onmanagement-MT- 1,746,984TC- 969,000RH- 748,334 (12 years)CI- 181,1175 (4 years)GH- 80,884
So it looks like APG has shelledout the most for MT. However, the figures are skewed due to the fact that theothers were paid as directors and were often only attending board meetings oncea month, so their ‘per day’ rate would be much higher.
Once again, I am in no wayadvocating that was a good price, I'm just still trying to wrap my head aroundwhy HE was the one to, because following some earlier insight from sasa, itseems that the 'one and only MT' was the one who brought in deals as well. So,I dug back over those, and this is what I could find
2007- BHP1 5 million2008- BHP 2 5.7 million2011- Kronos 12.5 million2012- Orient Ziconia 1.98 million. Orient Zirocnia (WIM 150 sale) 7.5 million20190 Yangang 803000
Just those six deals alonebrought in- 33.483 million dollars
So if we've spent only 1.75million on MT and he brought in 33.483 million- it seems we're 31.74 millionahead.Even putting in all super and nonmonetary benefits as reported in the Annuals, we've spent 3893567, so with thedeals he brought it we're still 29.6 million ahead.
Now, I stress again- I AM IN NOWAY JUSTIFYING WHAT MT WAS PAID.
My question though still is, whyhim?
Why not TC? He's been paid969,000 for showing up a about a dozen times a year since 2007 and brought inwhat?CI was meant to bring in thecontacts, we've spent 181,175 on him, and got what?What have we got for Hiller's80884?
Like I said, I’m trying to lookat this through the numbers not the emotion. And it basically looks like forevery dollar spent on MT he brought in 8.6.
So, going back to my earlierquestion, if MT could bring in deals but not keep them, why didn’t we vote downhis pay, keep him on and bring in somebody who hotshot ‘closer’ who could runwith what MT brought in.
With those numbers, how is MT outand TC still in?
If Iles is meant to be so good,why couldn’t he work to move these deals into commercialisation?
What actually is Hiller doing atall?
I’ve done my best to stick to numbersfrom already public annual reports and announcements, so all this informationis substantiated. Please don’t read this as anything more than me trying to getsome answers and see what we all think as shareholders.
