It’s the WPP annual general meeting week, during which there is some kind of contractual obligation to have a row about founder Sir Martin Sorrell’s pay.

As the rarely silent knight stepped down in April as chief executive from the advertising company he founded – amid allegations of personal misconduct – this will be the final time we get to hear the groans about how much he has just trousered (merely £13.9m in 2017, compared with £48.1m in 2016 and £70.4m in 2015).

All of which will be mildly entertaining, but this year’s kicker is that shareholders are curious – to put it mildly – about those allegations.

The former boss has denied wrongdoing, while WPP claims that data privacy laws stop it from saying anything at all (for it, Sorrell really does seem to be the hardest word).

Meanwhile, the City rumour mill is working overtime, with hugely varied theories about what the WPP founder is accused of (albeit with one common thread). Shareholders and their advisers are arguing that they need to hear the juice in order to assess if the company has got it right on future Sorrell payouts, with his existing long-term incentive scheme meaning he’ll still be paid by WPP for another five years. As shareholder advisory service Glass Lewis puts it: “Absent [sic] further information, it’s a bit unclear as to whether treating Sir Martin as a ‘good leaver’ is appropriate, and the board may face tough questions regarding their ‘oversight’ of the situation, along with succession planning.”

Which brings us to the second number to be performed this week. Who is going to be WPP’s second chief executive?

The company will argue it has done rigorous succession planning and that its swift appointment of a brace of joint chief operating officers – Mark Read, chief executive of WPP Digital, and Andrew Scott, chief operating officer for Europe – demonstrates as much. Read is thought to be the most likely internal candidate to take over, but an external search (with no public timetable) is now being conducted too.

If that irritates shareholders a tad, then there will be other gripes too. Investors will also quiz the board on how they’ve allowed Sorrell to leave without a non-compete clause – which has allowed him to immediately announce a new advertising venture, S4 Capital.

WPP is keen to sound relaxed about this and its current non-execs have alibis, with all of them arriving at the firm after Sorrell’s last contract was signed in 2008. It will also argue that Sorrell can’t use his knowledge of WPP’s contracts to nick clients, and can’t poach staff as they do have non-compete clauses.

Still, the suspicion is that there is an additional reason why WPP is not sweating about S4: theories are swirling around the City that Sorrell’s backers will prove to be too nervous to commit funds, just in case the allegations become public and prove scandalous.