Danny Moar is in top-10 highest paid charity directors

Don't remember any discussion over it. That is an outrageous amount. Pretty sure those running comparable theatres are on around 100k?

For scale of another kind of 'charity' Vice Chancellors of small-medium Universities are on around 200k and that's running a much larger staff/customer base.

If they are calling themselves a charity then the profits should be ploughed back into the theatre surely? any charity/public sector organisation shouldn't have 'bonus' for doing well. Or in terms of reward perhaps it should be in the form of a more substantial annual payrise ie 'we've made x % more profit than projected over the last 2 years therefore you get x % payrise as a result'

See also Trevor Nunn - www.theguardian.com/uk/2001/mar/25/vanessathorpe.theobserver1

As I understand it this arrangement was stopped following Nunn's tenure

So therefore it does get public subsidy and bet it gets a lot more through gift aid donations, when people buy their thickets.

With inflated salaries such as this in the performing arts can be used as a beating stick by the government of the day to cut public funding. So not good for the theatrical industry as a whole and the Theatre Royal isn't anything more significant than other theatre companies.

The salary is less than £140,000 which seems comparable with the sector.

The bonus payments from the transfers sound very generous but they are paid from commercial activities and not from either public subsidy or from charitable income.

I think that TRB only receives grants earmarked for specific purposes, and has no core funding.

So, there's little cause to beat sticks or buy thickets!

I work in the private sector. My annual salary increase is based on my personal performance and the performance of the company, the latter determines how much money is in the bonus "pot" for sharing out. If I don't perform well I don't get an salary increase at all. Bonus is only paid if targets have been met or exceeded. There is no reward for average performance, let alone below average. 

I dont think think this is unusual. 

Artistic directors for New York's top three not for profit theatres, Roundabout Theatre Company, Lincoln Centre Theatre and Manhattan Theatre Company have yearly salaries of between $300,000-500,000 per annum.

There was an article a few years back saying that the CEO of ROH at the time was getting £390,000 a year while Antonio Papano was getting £630,000 a year from being director of music and conductor. Clearly there's big money to be made to work in opera.

What's ironic is that their productions have notoriously cheap budgets. Like insultingly cheap. No one is paid above the very bare minimum (if that) on them.

Switzerland had a referendum about a 1:12 factor in 2013, but it failed, i.e. the Swiss public rejected this proposal with a 65:35% vote.

That said: Even if such a rule were in place, it would be completely pointless, as companies would simply outsource their (top-)management to separate companies and then buy back management services from said company. The 1:x law would then have to be applied separately to the old company (without management) and the new management company, and in the latter company, it'd only mean that the most senior management isn't paid more than x times that of the most junior management person.

And just for the record: I, too, oppose to such a law. Yes, my salary is way below 100k (Euro, let alone Pound), and I highly doubt I'll ever get close, but I have absolutely no problem with senior management and CxOs (CEO, CTO et al.) earning that much money. I wouldn't want to have their responsibilities nor working times.