Compare the Pair: Varying approach between 2 regularly compared...

Compare the Pair:
Varying approach between 2 regularly compared coys on this thread by one poster who loves posting volume over quality. Its pretty interesting for those who have the ability to take a balanced view, especially when you look at ability to raise, achievements over the year and attracting and retaining cornerstone investment.

The below is board only, so doesn't include AF taking 1/3 of the FT expense (or ciorca $600k) for no published achievements or any of the Coles (down down) oppies. FWIW PYC didnt give out any oppies outside of staff and that was very very limited, thats because they have a policy of aligning with holder expectations and a chair who just wouldnt put up with that $hit as you can see below. The lack of opacity at PYC is also interesting, you can read through and see exactly what happened and how rewards are determined. To be clear, I hold both...

From the PYC report.... Clear and detailed



From the PER report... Loose AF



REM comparison...



Are you content that CG, JG and GP are acting in your best interests and ""reduced some significant costs, for example by eliminating manyconsultants and relocating our office to a less expensive location", or, as the above demonstrates, reduced significant costs so we can increase board member payments, ceo salaries and start dishing out ridiculous bonuses for doing the job you are paid to do....

Take a look at the facts, objectively.... and then..
If you think this is heading into rort territory I encourage you to contact the board and voice your disgust. If not, feel free to rip into me and provide FACTS as to how I am wrong.

GLAH