Ann: Board restructure and management changes, page-21

Firstly, and to get this out of the way. I can only find Matt was appointed in Sept 19, 14 months ago, not 18. Second the salary paid as at June30 was $67869, assuming he started at the start of September, that's $6786.90 per month, or close to $1700per week. This is in the annual report. I did notice that some of the staff/directors did less than a full week, I am unsure if Matt is one of these, but I'll assume he wasn't.

Now that we've split hairs, let's look at your main points. I agree that this is a fair wage, and I also agree that performance should be rewarded also. But a director should do their best, irrelevant of what they are paid, if that is the contract on which they have agreed to.

I see your point in the 0.006 and 0.009 and the percentages, maybe I was too quick to jump the gun there, it just seems a few good holes and that'll be an easy target, however, this doesn't take into account for the back story to get there like you mentioned. Perhaps I haven't thoroughly though about that part and will put more consideration into my vote.

Lastly, thanks for taking the time to post. I like reading other objective posts and differing perspectives. Sometimes you can't see the forest for the trees.