Last year the physical meeting was a farce because I don't recall any opportunity for those present as Shareholders to ask questions in a formal, somewhat organized, Q&A session. The voting was done, Jim Otteson was introduced and gave a very welcome speech but, if I recall correctly, as soon as he finished the Board got up and that was that. That could just as well have been a webcast for all it achieved.
The meeting room they hired for 2 hours wouldn't have cost much because the hotel also got several breakfasts and maybe lunches out of it, and maybe some rooms the previous night. The security guards and bouncers probably cost way more than the room.
The only advantage I see to a physical meeting, given the BoD's attitude towards shareholders (unless it magically changes for the better) is for it to be an opportunity for a subsequent meeting of concerned shareholders where we could get together after the meeting and build a strategic plan to "take back the company".
Looking at my forward calendar I probably won't be able to attend if it is around the usual time. In fact, I would rather see it in late June or early July so that the year ended May 30 2015 can be presented with accurate numbers. Sad, isn't it, that I have to state 2015 rather than infer the "year just ended".
A virtual meeting is indeed cheaper for shareholders but means no interactive "Questions from the floor" because questions would be submitted beforehand or maybe online during the meeting. This again leaves the BoD in total control of which ones they deign to answer with little chance of a follow up question or a request for clarification.
Personally, I feel a hybrid meeting could work. Shareholders present could try to ask their own questions and those sent to them by those that can't attend. Remote attendees could watch a realtime webcast, which would not cost much.
If PTSC is going to see millions in income over the next 18 months, then a few thousand spent on trying to appease shareholders seems the least the BoD could do. Unless, of course, 401(k) matching is more strategically important to them. .