[greenleafjacob]

Article states that the board needed an incentive to keep the CEO on since he was going to retire at 65 otherwise. Wasn’t this an entirely foreseeable outcome? I mean what will be different next year for example? I looked for some market force or exigency that would force the board’s hand but didn’t see any in the article.

[gameswithgo]

Perhaps the board is made up of other extremely high paid CEOs who have a hard time believing other people could do their jobs, for far less?

[greenleafjacob]

That certainly was/is my initial bias.