AGM Explanatory Statement

I have difficulties in the acceptance of incentives schemes for the management team considering my experience as an employee having to meet KPI’s to get a measly justification of a CPI increase. And that is a dodgy concept whose aim is to be a lagging trend benefit to employees’.

The remuneration concept for the management normally consists of a fixed component, STI and LTI.

It really should be interpreted in the following way: The fixed component is really attendances money’s. The STI and LTI is, if you really want me to do any off the work that I was hired too do, is to fulfill the following criteria, Unfortunately, to get me off my backside, you’ll have to pay me the STI and LTI.

What would be the reaction of management be, if an employee pulled the same stunt?

Under the definition of ‘Eligible Person’, why are contractors included to an LTI plan?
Isn’t the incentive of being hired because of their supposedly skills, sufficient?

Further, if their skill’s is of benefit to the company for the long term. Wouldn’t they be offered a permanent position?

Sound a bit suss too me!
Isn’t it possibly the aim off including contractors in the LTI as a dodgy entry system for a colleague or family member?

Mr Challa and Mr Smith at this stage LTI’s should be restricted to exercisable options, until they have proven their worth to the company, before any thoughts off giving them any shares in the future.

Radicool Views