We're probably making over 100 million in revenues now per year. And you’re worried about the most important person in the program for around 5 million per year, which is only 5 percent of those revenues? It's the same old trick used to make government programs seem much larger than they are by including the total costs over a decade vs the annual cost.
An example is the F-35 fighter program, which had total program costs included out to the year 2070 which add up to 1.5 trillion. But it's a 70 year program, with per decade costs around 200 billion, and annual costs at 20 billion. The total annual military budget is close to 800 billion, so the F-35 program is using only a fraction of those total resources. Yet some stupid senators wanted to cut the program because all they see is the word trillion. Based on its capabilities, the F-35 program will be the most successful military procurement program of all time, and it isn't close. There's a reason they budget it out to 2070 and that's because it will still be effective for at least that long.
Apologies for the off-topic reply, but I guess the point I'm trying to make is we need to find a coach that will set ourselves up for success in the long term, and we need to be willing to invest the resources to make it happen.