With less than a year at the helm of Viacom Inc. (VIA), CEO Tom Freston is going to receive a pay package worth 84.8 million.
"Freston, who spent more than 20 years at Viacom, will receive $58.9 million in severance, the New York-based media company said in a regulatory filing today. He also will get $7.4 million in deferred compensation and $5.7 million in a retirement-fund payout."
In another strange twist to the story, they have retained Freston in an advisory position to the company. Viacom spokesman Carl Folta said in an interview. "If he doesn't get another job or chooses to terminate the contract, the maximum he could get is $3 million over three years."
Folta also said that it is to help in the transition period.
Something smells a little in this deal. How do you get rid of a guy that you say performed poorly, give him a huge severance package, and then contract out to him in an advisory role for the company? And that's for a three year transition period?
If I was a shareholder I'd be up in arms over this. Redstone gets rid of Tom Cruise because he's allegedly too expensive for the company, and then they pay this type of package to someone who they say has failed? Things are just a little too quiet about this to suit me.
I personally felt they made a mistake in getting rid of Freston so early. But there is not one thing that makes any fiscally responsible sense about this deal that I can see for Viacom or its shareholders. Doesn't this sound wrong to you?
Comment Preview