Schadenfreude wrote:Making it even worse is the degree to which it was back-loaded, something that I've always hated...$18m/year is excessive, but structuring it with the $23m bump year in 2011 and $21m/year from '12-'14 is silly. It's not as if the organization could have reasonably expected that they'd be swimming in cash by the turn of the decade.
I think the logic there was they were expecting to be able to continue spending at 2006+ levels so keeping Vernon's yearly salary at around 12m for the first few years allowed them to free up even more room for the short-term. But of course, they gave up on spending after just 2 years.