Thanks for the support
@Chianti. For me it was never about having a bigger anything. Just as people are saying you don't know her situation, well you don't know mine. I had a health scare a long time ago that may or may not mean I can be the daddy and husband l want be for as long as would like to be. Accumulating wealth to me was never about having more material things than the Joneses. It was everything to do about the woman I adore that chose to spend her life with me and the our beautiful children we bought into this world are looked after and have the opportunities in life that were not open to me.
I am feeling raw talking about such things on the forum but you need to know why I may seem blunt and pig headed in my responses. The best thing about being fininacially independent is not the material things, as that was not what incentivized me on my path. The best thing is not being beholden to anyone or any employer. The only person I report to is God above and that's why I can call a spade a spade and call people and situations out without fear of repercussion or retribution.
What someone got from A2 was PR spin on the indefensible and they chose to drink the Kool aid presented to them. You cannot defend the indefensible. If Jayne was in need of that much money so soon into her tenure then management should of advanced her more cash from that massive kitty of theirs. If they believed she was the best candidate for the role then it was obvious to both of the parties the repercussions of her selling out weeks into her job was going to end in tears and damage not only her but the companies image and by default the loyal shareholders.
She could of had prior comitments to buy a house or Picasso, whatever it was is irrelevant . The fact it was known by both parties that she needed access to >80% of her possible annual pay so soon it could of been done without the all pain and damage to both parties and the shareholders.
My beef is why the company is still thinking it's acceptable to keep putting their hands into the shareholders pockets thru constant share dilutions to reward themshelves instead of taking it out of cash reserves they have. It's no longer a micro cap. It's a top ASX 100 company with no debt, plenty of cash in hand with growth other companies can only dream of.
They forget we the shareholders are the owners and they work for us not the other way around. Who gives them the right to keep diluting the share base at our expense in paying themselves instead of accessing cash on hand. Why even bring up the subject of share buybacks while they can't stop helping themselves to something they should not be accessing anymore.
A CEO needs to be ruthless and do what needs to be done regardless if the decisions hurt people like was the case of Jayne''s previous boss at Qantas.
A CEO job is also to put their needs secondary to the company and its shareholders and whatever her prior financial commitment's were it was handled absolutely appallingly by both parties involved. There is no PR spin that can undo the damage this has done. She has put her needs over the company's and to hell with the consequences, last I looked she works for us and not the other way around. I hope moving forward we don't see such missteps and the end of creating new shares for the use of managerial renumeration and bonuses. Buy them on market or use some other form of reward that does not entail taking money directly from shareholders.
(20min delay)