Our executive compensation programs are designed to attract, retain and motivate qualified, knowledgeable and talented executives who are capable of performing their responsibilities. We believe that the leadership and performance of our executives contributed significantly to our strong operating and financial results in 2016, which included:

By voting on this Proposal 3, stockholders may indicate whether they would prefer that we provide for a stockholder advisory vote on executive compensation at future annual meetings every year, every two years or every three years.

The Board of Directors believes that providing an advisory vote on the compensation of our NEOs every year is the most appropriate alternative. In formulating its recommendation, the Board of Directors determined that an annual advisory vote on executive

compensation will allow our stockholders to provide us with their direct input on our compensation philosophy, policies and practices as disclosed in the proxy statement on a more timely and consistent basis than the biennial and triennial alternatives.

Additionally, an annual advisory vote on executive compensation is consistent with our policy of seeking regular dialogue with our stockholders on corporate governance matters and our executive compensation philosophy, policies and practices.

Proposal 4 asks that our stockholders vote to ratify the Audit Committee’s appointment of Ernst & Young LLP as the independent registered public accounting firm to audit our financial statements for the 2017 fiscal year. In the event the stockholders fail to ratify the appointment, the Audit Committee will reconsider this appointment. The Audit Committee, in its discretion, may direct the appointment of a different independent registered public accounting firm at any time during the year if the Audit Committee

determines that such a change would be in our and our stockholders’ best interests.

Ernst & Young LLP has served as our independent registered public accounting firm since 2002. Representatives of Ernst & Young LLP will be present at the meeting. They will be available to respond to your questions and may make a statement if they desire.

Corporate Governance

Our business is managed under the direction of our Board of Directors. The Board delegates the conduct of the business to our senior management team. The Board held four meetings during 2016. All directors who served on the Board during 2016 attended at least 75% of the total number of meetings of the Board and those committees of which the director was a member during the period in which he or she served as a director in the aggregate during 2016.

We have adopted Corporate Governance Guidelines governing the conduct of our Board. The charters of our Audit Committee, Human Resources Committee and Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee, as well as our Corporate Governance Guidelines, are all posted on our web site at www.rymanhp.com (under “Corporate Governance” on the Investor Relations page).

We have also adopted a Code of Business Conduct and Ethics which is applicable to all employees, officers and directors, including the principal executive officer, the principal financial officer and the principal accounting officer. The Code of Business Conduct and Ethics is available on our web site at www.rymanhp.com (under “Corporate Governance” on the Investor Relations page). We intend to post amendments to or waivers from our Code of Business Conduct and Ethics (to the extent applicable to our directors, principal executive officer, principal financial officer or principal accounting officer) at this location on our website.

We will provide a copy of our Corporate Governance Guidelines, our committee charters or our Code of Business Conduct and Ethics (and any amendments or waivers) to any stockholder or other person upon receipt of a written request addressed to:

Ryman Hospitality Properties, Inc.

Attn: Corporate Secretary

One Gaylord Drive

Nashville, Tennessee 37214

Board Leadership Structure

The Board believes that Mr. Reed’s service as both Chairman of the Board and CEO is in the best

interests of the company and its stockholders. Mr. Reed possesses a detailed knowledge of our industry as well as an understanding of both the opportunities and challenges we face. The Board thus believes that Mr. Reed is best positioned to develop agendas that ensure that the Board’s time and attention are focused on the most important matters facing the company. The Board also believes that Mr. Reed’s combined role ensures clear accountability, enhances our ability to articulate our strategy and message to our employees, stockholders and business partners and enables decisive overall leadership.

The Board has determined that it is also important to have an independent Lead Director who will play an active role and oversee many of the functions that an independent chair would otherwise perform. The Board has adopted a description of the duties of the Lead Director, which is posted on our website at www.rymanhp.com (under “Corporate Governance” on the Investor Relations page). Pursuant to this description, the Chairman of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee serves as the company’s Lead Director, and that individual is currently Michael I. Roth.

Some of the primary functions of our Lead Director are:

Each of the directors other than Mr. Reed is independent, and the Board believes that the independent directors coupled with the Lead Director provide effective oversight of management. Our non-management directors meet regularly in scheduled executive sessions, and the Lead Director presides at these executive sessions. Following an executive session of our non-management directors, the Lead Director acts as a liaison between the non-management directors and the Chairman regarding any specific feedback or issues, provides the Chairman with input regarding agenda items for Board and committee meetings, and coordinates with the Chairman regarding information to be provided to our non-management directors in performing their duties. The Board believes that this approach appropriately and effectively complements the combined CEO/Chairman structure.

Although we believe that the combination of the Chairman and CEO roles is appropriate in the current circumstances, the Board retains the authority to modify our current combined CEO/Chairman structure to best address our circumstances, if and when appropriate.

Board Attendance at Annual Meeting

We strongly encourage each member of the Board to attend the Annual Meeting of Stockholders. All of our directors then serving as directors attended the 2016 Annual Meeting of Stockholders.

Independence of Directors

Pursuant to our Corporate Governance Guidelines, the Board undertook its annual review of director independence in February 2017. Our Board determines the independence of its members through a broad consideration of all relevant facts and circumstances, including an assessment of the materiality of any relationship between the company and a director. In making this assessment, the Board looks not only at relationships from the director’s standpoint, but also from the standpoint of persons or organizations with which the director has an affiliation. In making its determination, the Board adheres to the requirements of, and applies both the objective and subjective standards set forth by, the NYSE (as set forth in Section 303A.02 of the NYSE listed company manual), as well as the requirements and standards of the SEC and other applicable laws and regulations.

During this review, the Board considered whether there are or have been any transactions and relationships between each director, or any member of his or her immediate family, and the company and its subsidiaries and affiliates. The Board also examined whether there are or have been any transactions and relationships between the incumbent directors, or their affiliates, and members of the company’s senior management or their affiliates. The purpose of this review was to determine whether any of these relationships or transactions were inconsistent with a determination that the director is independent. The Board concluded that no such transactions existed during the relevant period. As a result of this review, the Board affirmatively determined that, with the exception of Colin Reed, all of our incumbent directors are independent of the company and its management.

Committees of the Board

The Board maintains three standing committees, an Audit Committee, Human Resources Committee and Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee, to facilitate and assist the Board in the execution of its responsibilities.

Audit Committee

The current members of the Audit Committee are Patrick Q. Moore (Chair), Rachna Bhasin, William F. Hagerty, IV and Michael D. Rose (Financial Expert).

The committee is a separately designated standing audit committee established in accordance with Section 3(a)(58)(A) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The committee is responsible for, among other things:

The Board has determined that all the members of the committee are financially literate pursuant to the NYSE rules. The Board also has determined that Mr. Rose is an “audit committee financial expert” within the meaning stipulated by the SEC.

In 2016, the committee met seven times.

Human Resources Committee

The current members of the Human Resources Committee are Michael Bender (Chair), Ellen Levine, Robert S. Prather and Michael I. Roth.

The committee is responsible for, among other items:

The committee has also delegated to the CEO the authority to make limited equity grants to new members of our management team to allow such grants to be made in a timely manner, as the committee generally only meets on a quarterly basis. Equity grants under this delegation of authority may only be made as initial equity grants to newly hired executives (other than officers subject to Section 16 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) and on the same terms and conditions as were applied by the committee in its most recent prior equity grants. In addition, equity grants under this delegation of authority to any one executive are limited to 6,250 RSUs and must be ratified by the committee.

The committee has engaged Aon Hewitt as its compensation consultant since 2013. The committee has determined that no conflict of interest exists between Aon Hewitt and the company (including the company’s Board members and company management) pursuant to Item 407(e)(3)(iv) of SEC Regulation S-K. In 2015 neither Aon Hewitt nor any affiliate of Aon Hewitt provided any services to the company or its affiliates apart from its engagement by the committee described above.

Aon Hewitt assisted the committee in determining if its strategies and plans were advisable based on our current financial position and strategic goals, as well as developments in corporate governance and compensation design. At the committee’s request, Aon Hewitt also performed several analyses, including updates to the executive salary structure and modeling of executive compensation levels at different levels of company performance, to assist the committee in its review.

For additional information regarding the committee’s processes and procedures for considering and determining executive compensation, including the role of executive officers in determining the amount or form of executive compensation, see Compensation Discussion and Analysis below.

In 2016, the committee met four times.

Compensation Committee Interlocks and Insider Participation

The Human Resources Committee (which functions as our compensation committee) is comprised entirely of independent directors. In addition, there are no relationships among our executive officers, members of the committee or entities whose executives serve on the Board or the committee that require disclosure under applicable regulations of the SEC.

Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee

The current members of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee are Michael I. Roth (Chair), Ellen Levine and Robert S. Prather.

The committee is responsible for, among other things:

In 2016, the committee met four times.

A formal Board evaluation covering Board operations and performance, with a written evaluation from each Board member, is conducted annually by the committee to enhance Board effectiveness. Recommended changes are considered by the full Board. In addition, each Board committee conducts an annual self-evaluation.

The committee annually reviews with the Board the company’s “Statement of Expectations of Directors.” This review includes an assessment of independence, diversity, age, skills, experience and industry backgrounds in the context of the needs of the Board and the company, as well as the ability of current and prospective directors to devote sufficient time to performing their duties in an effective manner. Directors are expected to actively participate in Board discussions and exemplify the highest standards of personal and professional integrity. In particular, the committee seeks directors with established strong professional reputations and expertise in areas relevant to the strategy and operations of our businesses.

While our Corporate Governance Guidelines do not prescribe specific diversity criteria for selection of directors, as a matter of practice, the committee considers diversity in the context of the Board as a whole and takes into account diversity, including the personal characteristics (such as gender, ethnicity or age) and experience (such as industry, professional or public service) of current and prospective directors, when selecting new directors to facilitate Board deliberations that reflect a broad range of viewpoints. The committee’s charter gives it responsibility to develop and recommend criteria for the selection of new directors to the Board, including but not limited to diversity, age, skills, experience, time availability and such other criteria as the committee shall determine to be relevant at the time.

The committee also considers the impact of any changes in the employment of existing directors. In this regard, if a director changes employment, the director is required to submit a letter of resignation to the committee. The committee then reviews the director’s change of employment and determines whether the director’s continued service on the Board would be advisable as a result of such change. After completing this evaluation, the committee makes a recommendation to the full Board as to whether to accept the director’s resignation, and the Board makes a final determination of whether to accept the director’s resignation.

The committee considers candidates for Board membership recommended by its members and other Board members, as well as by management and stockholders. From time the time the committee may also engage a third party search firm to identify prospective Board members. The committee will only consider stockholder nominees for Board membership submitted in accordance with the procedures set forth in Submitting Stockholder Proposals and Nominations for 2018 Annual Meeting beginning on page 65.

Once the committee has identified a prospective nominee, the committee makes an initial determination as to whether to conduct a full evaluation of the candidate. This initial determination is based on whatever information is provided to the committee with the recommendation of the prospective candidate, as well as the committee’s own knowledge of the prospective candidate, which may be supplemented by inquiries to the person making the recommendation or others. The preliminary determination is based primarily on the need for additional Board members to fill vacancies or expand the size of the Board and the likelihood that the prospective nominee can satisfy the evaluation factors described below. If the committee determines, in consultation with the Chairman of the Board and other Board members as appropriate, that additional consideration is warranted, it may request additional information about the prospective nominee’s background and experience. The committee then evaluates the prospective nominee against the following standards and qualifications:

The committee also considers such other relevant factors as it deems appropriate, including the current composition of the Board and the evaluations of other prospective nominees. In connection with this evaluation, the committee determines whether to interview the prospective nominee, and if warranted, one or more members of the committee, and others as appropriate, will interview the prospective nominee in person or by telephone. After completing this evaluation and interview, the committee makes a recommendation to the full Board as to whether this prospective nominee and any other prospective nominees should be nominated by the Board, and the Board determines the nominees after considering the recommendation and report of the committee.

Mr. Bowles was initially identified to the committee as a potential director nominee by an existing director, Patrick Moore. The company also engaged a third party search firm to identify other potential candidates. The committee then interviewed Mr. Bowles and other candidates, reviewed the qualifications, expertise and experience of such candidates, and ultimately recommended to the full Board that Mr. Bowles become a nominee for director.

The committee expects that it will continue to evaluate the composition of the Board during 2017. In the event of any changes in the current composition of the Board, the committee would evaluate the Board’s composition and determine whether to recommend to the full Board the appointment of a new director.

New directors participate in an orientation program that includes discussions with senior management, their review of background materials on our strategic plan, organization and financial statements and visits to our facilities. We encourage each director to participate in continuing educational programs that are important to maintaining a director’s level of expertise to perform his or her responsibilities as a Board member.

Majority Voting Standard for Director Elections

Our Corporate Governance Guidelines and Bylaws provide for a majority voting standard in uncontested director elections. Under these provisions, any director nominee in an uncontested election will be elected to the Board if the votes cast for such nominee’s election exceed the votes cast against such nominee’s election at any meeting for the election of directors at which a quorum is present (with abstentions and broker non-votes not counted as votes cast either for or against such election). In addition, under our Corporate Governance Guidelines, each director agrees, by serving as a director or by accepting nomination for election as a director, that if while serving as a director he or she fails to receive the required majority vote in a director election, he or she will tender his or her resignation as a director for consideration by the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee and, ultimately, the Board, as described below.

In the event any incumbent director nominee does not receive the requisite majority vote, our Corporate Governance Guidelines provide that our Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee will evaluate the circumstances of the failed election and will make a recommendation regarding the director’s resignation to the full Board and will evaluate the resignation in light of the best interests of the company and its stockholders in determining whether to recommend accepting or rejecting the tendered resignation, or whether other action should be taken. Thereafter, the Board will act upon the resignation, taking into account the recommendation of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee, and will publicly disclose (by a press release, a filing with the SEC or other broadly disseminated means of communication) its decision regarding the tendered resignation and the rationale behind the decision within 90 days of the certification of the election results. In such event, if the Board accepts the resignation, the nominee will no longer serve on the Board, and if the Board rejects the resignation, the nominee will continue to serve until his or her successor has been duly elected and qualified or until his or her earlier disqualification, death, resignation or removal.

Director Retirement Policy

Our Corporate Governance Guidelines include a non-management director retirement policy, which requires any director who reaches the age of 75 to either (at the option of the director): (1) retire effective as of the date of the annual meeting of stockholders next following the director’s 75^th birthday; or (2) not stand for re-election at the next annual meeting of stockholders. In accordance with this policy, Mr. Rose is not standing for re-election at the Annual Meeting.

Compensation Clawback

In 2015 the SEC issued proposed rules regarding the adoption of “clawback” policies by publicly listed companies in accordance with the requirements of Section 954 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Dodd-Frank Act”). When final SEC rules implementing these requirements have become effective, publicly listed companies will be required to adopt a “clawback” policy providing for the recovery of certain incentive-based compensation from the executive officers of the company in the event the company is required to restate its financials as a result of material noncompliance of the company with any financial reporting requirements under the securities laws.

In order to ensure full compliance with these SEC rules, we intend to adopt our own formal clawback policy applicable to our executive officers complying with such rules once these final rules have been adopted by the SEC. In addition, Section 304 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 requires the recovery of incentive awards in certain circumstances. If we are required to restate our financials due to material noncompliance with any financial reporting requirements as a result of misconduct, our CEO and CFO will be required under Section 304 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act to reimburse us for (1) any bonus or other incentive- or equity-based compensation received during the 12 months following the first public issuance of the non-complying document, and (2) any profits realized from the sale of our securities during such 12 month period. Our omnibus incentive plan also provides that any award made to a participant under the plan will be subject to mandatory repayment by the participant to us to the extent required by (a) any award agreement, (b) any “clawback” or recoupment policy adopted by the company to comply with the requirements of any

applicable laws, rules or regulations, including final SEC rules adopted pursuant to Section 954 of the Dodd-Frank Act, or otherwise, or (c) any applicable laws which impose mandatory recoupment, under circumstances set forth in such applicable laws, including the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

Board’s Role in Risk Oversight

The Board as a whole has responsibility for oversight of the company’s enterprise risk management function, with reviews of certain areas being conducted by the relevant Board committees that report on their deliberations to the Board. The oversight responsibility of the Board and its committees is made possible by a management report process that is designed to provide both visibility and transparency to the Board about the identification, assessment and management of critical risks and management’s risk mitigation strategies. In this regard, each committee meets in executive session with key management personnel and representatives of outside advisors (for example, our director of internal audit meets in executive session with the Audit Committee). The areas of focus of the Board and its committees include competitive, economic, operational, financial (accounting, credit, liquidity and tax), legal, compliance, political and reputational risks. The Board and its committees oversee risks associated with their respective principal areas of focus, as outlined below:

We believe that the Board’s role in risk oversight is facilitated by the leadership structure of the Board. In this regard, we believe that, by combining the positions of Chairman of the Board and CEO, the Board gains a valuable perspective that combines the operational experience of a member of management with the oversight focus of a member of the Board. We also believe that the division of risk management-related roles among the company’s full Board, Audit Committee, Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee and Human Resource Committee as noted above fosters an atmosphere of significant involvement in the oversight of risk at the Board level and complements our risk management policies. The Board, in executive sessions of non-management directors (which are presided over by the company’s independent Lead Director), also considers and discusses risk-related matters. This provides a forum for risk-related matters to be discussed without management or the Chairman of the Board and CEO present. The company’s independent Lead Director acts as a liaison between the company’s Chairman of the Board and CEO and the company’s independent directors to the extent that any risk-related matters discussed at these executive sessions require additional feedback or action. In setting compensation, the Human Resources Committee also considers the risks to our stockholders that may be inherent in our compensation programs. We believe that our compensation programs are appropriately structured and provide for a suitable balance between long-term and short-term compensation and have an appropriate performance-based and “at risk” component. We also believe that our compensation policies and practices do not create risks that are reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on the company.

Restrictions on Hedging and Pledging of Company Stock

Our insider trading policy restricts our executive officers and directors from engaging in any transactions designed to hedge or otherwise offset any decrease in the fair market value of our equity

securities. Our insider trading policy also prohibits executive officers and directors from pledging or otherwise encumbering a significant amount of equity securities (generally defined as the lesser of 0.50% of our outstanding equity securities or 10% of the equity securities owned by the individual) without prior approval of the Human Resources Committee.

Proxy Solicitation

We will bear the cost of soliciting proxies for the meeting. We have retained Morrow Sodali LLC to assist in the solicitation and will pay them approximately $6,000. Our officers may also solicit proxies by mail, telephone, e-mail or facsimile transmission, but we will not reimburse them for their efforts. Upon request, we will reimburse brokers, dealers, banks and trustees, or their nominees, for reasonable expenses incurred by them in forwarding proxy materials.

Communications with the Board of Directors

Stockholders, employees and others interested in communicating with the Board (including non-management directors) may write to:

Ryman Hospitality Properties, Inc.

Attn: Corporate Secretary

One Gaylord Drive

Nashville, Tennessee 37214

The Corporate Secretary reviews all such correspondence and regularly forwards to the Board a summary of all such correspondence and copies of all correspondence that, in the opinion of our Corporate Secretary, deals with the functions of the Board or committees thereof or that he otherwise determines requires their attention. Directors may review a log of all correspondence addressed to members of the Board and request copies of any such correspondence. Concerns relating to accounting, internal controls or auditing matters are immediately brought to the attention of our internal audit department and handled in accordance with procedures established by the Audit Committee with respect to such matters. In addition, stockholders, employees and other interested parties may communicate directly with our independent Lead Director, individual independent directors or the independent directors as a group by email at boardofdirectors@rymanhp.com.

Overview

Our executive compensation programs are designed to attract, retain and motivate qualified, knowledgeable and talented executives who are capable of performing their responsibilities. In designing our executive compensation programs, our goals are to ensure that:

Our corporate objectives are to continue to increase funds available for distribution to our stockholders and to create long-term stockholder value. Consistent with these goals and objectives, the Human Resources Committee, which acts as our compensation committee, has developed and approved an executive compensation program providing for a range of compensation levels for our NEOs with the intent of rewarding strong performance and reducing compensation when our performance objectives are not achieved.

2016 Compensation Decisions

Our Human Resources Committee (which functions as our compensation committee) annually reviews our executive compensation program to determine how well actual compensation targets and levels meet our overall compensation philosophy and to compare our compensation programs to our peers. The committee also oversees our compensation programs.

Compensation Peer Group

For 2016, the committee used a compensation peer group of the following 14 companies:

These companies were selected based on their industry focus and their status as a REIT, enterprise value, revenue size and debt to capital ratio. For 2016 the committee added five new peer companies (Chatham Lodging Trust, Chesapeake Lodging Trust, FelCor Lodging Trust Inc., Pebblebrook Hotel Trust and Summit Hotel Properties, Inc.). These companies were intended to replace two peer companies which were no longer publicly traded due to acquisitions (Colonial Properties Trust and Strategic Hotels and Resorts) and to supplement the existing peer group by adding additional companies with a similar strategic focus, enterprise value and TSR performance over a three year period.

The committee annually determines whether our overall executive compensation program is consistent with our business strategy and promotes our compensation philosophy. In determining target total annual compensation for each NEO, the committee relies on its general experience and subjective considerations of various factors, including our strategic business goals, information with respect to the peer group set forth above, proprietary and publicly available compensation surveys and data with respect to REITs and other public companies provided by Aon Hewitt, and each executive officer’s position, experience, level of responsibility, individual job performance, contributions to our corporate performance, job tenure and future potential.

The committee does not set specific targets or utilize any formulaic benchmarks for overall compensation or for allocations between fixed and performance-based compensation, cash and non-cash compensation or short-term and long-term compensation. In addition, the committee uses proprietary and publicly available compensation surveys and data with respect to REITs and other public companies provided by our compensation consultant, Aon Hewitt, to obtain a general understanding of current compensation practices, including to confirm that the base salary and other elements of target total compensation opportunity for our executive officers is at a market-competitive level. The committee does not specifically target or benchmark in any formulaic manner any element of compensation or the total compensation payable to NEOs based on these factors.

Base Salary

Base salary is designed to compensate our NEOs for their roles and responsibilities and to provide a secure level of guaranteed cash compensation. We have employment agreements with Mr. Reed, Mr. Fioravanti and Mr. Westbrook that provide for a minimum base salary. We have severance agreements with Mr. Chaffin and Mr. Lynn that do not provide for any minimum base salary.

Each NEO’s base salary was set based on:

In 2016, base salary represented approximately 20% of our CEO’s total compensation package and (on average) approximately 30% of our other NEOs’ total compensation package (calculated in the manner described on page 31). The committee annually reviews the base salaries of each NEO and may make adjustments based on individual performance and changes in roles and responsibilities.

At its February 24, 2016 meeting, the committee reviewed the existing base salaries and perquisites for our NEOs. Specifically, the committee considered each NEO’s current base pay, taking into account base salary levels paid to persons holding similar positions at peer companies. With respect to Mr. Reed, the committee considered the complexity associated with his oversight of the company’s

Entertainment business operations and his oversight of the growth initiatives currently being undertaken at this business. With respect to Mr. Chaffin and Mr. Lynn, the committee determined that a larger percentage adjustment to base salary was necessary to maintain a market-competitive level of compensation for these executives.

Based on its review of the factors described above, the committee determined that the base salary amounts for the NEOs should be set at the following levels:

In consideration of the additional duties associated with Mr. Westbrook’s appointment as EVP & Chief Development Officer in June 2016, the committee determined that Mr. Westbrook’s annual base salary should be increased to $375,000 in connection with such appointment.

Short-Term Cash Incentive Compensation

We provide annual cash incentive compensation designed to reward achievement of specific previously established short-term financial and strategic goals.

2016 Performance Goals

For 2016 the committee determined that the NEOs would have the opportunity to earn the following percentage of their base salary based on the achievement of the financial performance goals (and, in the case of Mr. Reed, designated strategic objectives) described below.

The 2016 percentages of base salary at the threshold, target and stretch levels for each NEO were set at the following percentages:

The percentage of salary awarded for performance falling between the threshold and target achievement levels and the target and stretch achievement levels was to be determined using straight-line interpolation. In 2016, assuming performance at the target level of achievement, short-term cash incentive compensation represented approximately 29% of our CEO’s total compensation package and (on average) approximately 32% of our other NEOs’ total compensation package (calculated in the manner described on page 31).

In 2016, the performance targets, measured using AFFO as reported, excluding income tax expense or benefit (“Further Adjusted AFFO”), established by the committee were:

The committee selected this performance metric because it is a measure of our operations without regard to specified non-cash items such as real estate depreciation and amortization, gain or loss on sale of assets and certain other items which we believe are not indicative of the performance of our underlying hotel properties, and as such AFFO is one of the principal tools used by our management and the investment community in evaluating our financial performance as a REIT. These performance levels were set by the committee at the beginning of 2016 after thorough discussion with management regarding our anticipated financial performance. In choosing this goal, the committee considered the general economic climate expected in 2016, the expected conditions in the hospitality industry and our expected financial performance, including our guidance for 2016, as reflected in our earnings release issued in the first quarter of 2016. The committee intended the target performance goal to be a challenging level of achievement. The committee attempted to set the threshold, target and stretch performance goals to ensure that the relative level of difficulty of achieving these performance levels would be generally consistent with prior years.

The awards to the NEOs (other than Mr. Reed) were based solely on our level of achievement of Further Adjusted AFFO. The award to Mr. Reed was based 75% on our achievement of Further Adjusted AFFO and 25% on our achievement of the strategic objectives, approved in advance by the committee, of achieving effective capital allocation and balance sheet management, specifically including maintaining leverage with a designated range, ensuring compliance with applicable debt covenants and managing interest rate risk associated with floating rate indebtedness.

When the committee established these targets at the beginning of 2016, it made a determination to adjust Further Adjusted AFFO for the year to exclude losses or expense related to certain unusual or infrequently occurring events as set forth in our omnibus incentive plan (and that the committee would have the discretion whether to exclude any such items of income or gain). In addition, under the terms of our omnibus incentive plan, the committee may exercise negative discretion in determining the final amounts of the short-term cash incentive awards payable at any given level of performance to ensure that such awards accurately reflect our actual performance. The committee also had the option of lowering the amount of, or not awarding, annual cash incentive compensation otherwise payable to an executive under the plan for 2016 if the executive did not attain a minimum-level annual performance rating under the company’s employee evaluation program, which is a prerequisite to receiving cash incentive compensation under the plan.

2016 Short-Term Incentive Compensation Awards

In analyzing our results for purposes of determining the level of achievement under the short-term incentive compensation plan, the committee reviewed our operating and financial results for 2016.

In performing its review, the committee made note of the following financial and operating highlights:

The committee determined that the company’s 2016 Further Adjusted AFFO for purposes of our short-term incentive compensation plan was $285.7 million, which represented the company’s Further Adjusted AFFO, including the effect of a $1.2 million gain on the sale of certain excess real property located near our Gaylord Texan Resort. Under the terms of our omnibus incentive plan, the committee had the discretion to exclude such gain from the calculation of Further Adjusted AFFO under the plan due to the infrequently occurring nature of such gain.

Based on its review, however, the committee determined not to exclude this gain for purposes of the omnibus incentive plan because the gain was in furtherance of our strategic objective of increasing available cash for distribution to stockholders.

Accordingly, the committee determined that the company’s Further Adjusted AFFO for purposes of our short-term incentive compensation plan for 2016 was $285.7 million, which met the “target” performance goal. The committee also determined that Mr. Reed had met the individual strategic performance objectives described above, which combined with the Further Adjusted AFFO achievement level described above, resulted in a payout level equal to the “target” payout level for Mr. Reed. The committee also determined that Mr. Reed should receive an additional amount of cash incentive compensation, as listed in the table below, due to his contributions to the company’s operating and financial performance in 2016, including, in particular, with respect to Mr. Reed’s leadership with respect to the following accomplishments:

The committee also reviewed the annual performance rating of each NEO and determined that each NEO met the minimum level performance rating.

As a result, the committee approved the following short-term cash incentive compensation awards:

2016 Long-Term Equity Incentive Compensation

Our long-term equity incentive compensation plan is designed to align the interests of our NEOs and stockholders and focus our NEOs on long-term objectives over a multi-year period. Long-term equity incentive awards are also intended to attract and retain our NEOs through long-term vesting. In 2016, long-term equity incentive compensation represented approximately 50% of our CEO’s total compensation package and (on average) approximately 36% of our other NEOs’ total compensation package (calculated in the manner described on page 31).

Long-Term Equity Incentive Compensation Plan Components

Our long-term equity incentive plan components are:

Performance-Based RSUs:

Time-Based RSUs:

2016 Long-Term Equity Incentive Compensation Awards

For 2016, the committee discussed with Aon Hewitt the most appropriate way to motivate and retain our executives. The committee believed it was important to continue to use RSU awards instead of stock options to better align the interests of our executives with our stockholders, to encourage executive retention and to conform to compensation practices in the REIT industry.

As a result of these discussions, the committee decided to structure long-term equity incentive compensation awards in 2016 as a combination of performance-based RSUs and time-based RSUs. The determination of the number of RSUs to award to each NEO was based on a number of factors including but not limited to corporate and individual performance, historical grants and competitive practices. Additionally, in connection with the appointment of Mr. Westbrook as EVP & Chief Development Officer in June 2016 the committee determined it was appropriate to make an additional award of time-based RSUs to aid in the retention of this executive.

As a result of the determinations discussed above, on February 24, 2016, the committee made the following long-term incentive compensation awards to the NEOs:

2016 Performance-Based RSU Awards (2016-2018 Performance Period)

The amount of the performance-based RSUs which will ultimately vest on March 15, 2019 will be determined by comparing our TSR performance during the performance period (January 1, 2016 – December 31, 2018) relative to the median of the TSR performance of the following two peer groups (the “2016 Performance Peer Groups”), weighted equally: (1) our 2016 compensation peer group listed above; and (2) the following companies within the FTSE NAREIT Lodging Resorts Index (which were selected by the committee based on their industry focus and their status as a REIT, enterprise value, revenue size, debt to capital ratio and TSR performance over a three year period):

Specifically, the awards will vest as follows:

If the performance achieved falls in between the established performance goal levels, the percentage of the award earned by the NEO will be determined using straight-line interpolation and rounding to the nearest full share. The awards also provide that if our TSR is negative, on an absolute basis, the committee may, in its discretion, reduce by 25% the number of awards ultimately vesting. In no event will the final value of the award exceed 500% of the fair market value of our common stock on the grant date of February 24, 2016. The committee believes that limiting the maximum value of the award ensures the NEOs are not disproportionally awarded for performance.

The committee re-evaluates the 2016 Performance Peer Groups for each fiscal year to take into account changes to the composition of the 2016 Performance Peer Groups (i.e., corporate changes such as mergers or delistings), or to otherwise modify the terms of the award to take into account such other factors which the committee in its sole discretion has determined. The committee has not exercised this discretion in connection with the 2016 performance-based RSU awards except to reflect certain corporate changes in the peer group companies.

The committee believed the amount of these awards was appropriate given our compensation philosophy and objectives, specifically noting that achievement of greater than “target” level performance would have also resulted in higher than average TSR to our stockholders, as compared to our peers. In 2016, performance-based RSUs represented approximately 25% of our CEO’s total compensation package and (on average) approximately 17% of our other NEOs’ total compensation package (calculated in the manner described on page 31).

2016 Time-Based RSU Awards

The time-based RSUs granted to the NEOs reflected in the chart above vest ratably over four years, beginning on March 15, 2017. The committee believed the amount of the time-based RSU awards made to our NEOs was appropriate given our compensation philosophy and objectives, including the need to retain our executives. In 2016, time-based RSUs represented approximately 25% of our CEO’s total compensation package and (on average) approximately 19% of our other NEOs’ total compensation package (calculated in the manner described on page 31).

Vesting of 2014 Performance-Based RSU Awards in February 2017 (2014-2016 Performance Period)

In February 2014 we awarded performance-based RSUs to each NEO, which ultimately were to vest based on the company’s TSR performance over the 3-year award cycle (2014-2016), as compared to the TSR for the designated performance peer groups during the same performance period.

Specifically, the awards were to vest as follows:

Our TSR over the performance period, calculated pursuant to the terms of the performance-based RSU agreements, was approximately 50 percentage points above the median TSR performance of the designated performance peer groups.

As a result, the 2014 performance-based RSUs ultimately vested at the 150% level in February 2017 as follows:

Benefits and Perquisites

Our benefit programs are based upon an assessment of competitive market factors and a determination of what is needed to attract and retain qualified executives. Our primary benefits for executives include participation in our broad-based plans at the same cost as other employees. These plans include a tax qualified 401(k) savings plan (with matching contributions of up to four percent of a participant’s pay), health and dental plans and various disability and life insurance plans.

We also provide a limited amount of executive-level perquisites to our NEOs and other designated senior executives, including the ability to participate in our unfunded, unsecured, supplemental deferred compensation plan, or SUDCOMP, with a company matching component. Details about our SUDCOMP may be found under Other Compensation Information—Nonqualified Deferred Compensation on page 50.

Our directors, NEOs and other employees routinely use commercial air service for business travel, and we generally reimburse them only at the coach or business class rate.

Although we do not own a corporate airplane, we do maintain a limited aircraft program to provide our executives with timely and cost-effective travel alternatives in connection with our business activities. We do not operate any aircraft, own or lease a hangar or employ pilots. Instead, we have purchased a fractional interest in an aircraft. We pay a fixed monthly fee, plus a variable charge for hours actually flown. Our directors, NEOs and other employees use this aircraft for selected business trips when commercial air service is unavailable or otherwise impractical, based on the availability and cost of commercial air service, the travel time involved, the number of employees traveling and the need for flexible travel arrangements. All travel under this program must be approved by our CEO.

Mr. Reed’s employment agreement provides that he is entitled to a limited amount of personal aircraft usage on an annual basis. We also make the aircraft available to our other executives for limited personal use, which is typically limited to permitting the executive’s spouse or other family member to accompany the executive on required business travel. We believe allowing limited personal use of our aircraft program serves to reduce our executives’ personal travel time and to increase the time they can conduct company business on our behalf.

For more information about this perquisite, and amounts reported as income in 2016 for each NEO,

see the table listing components of All Other Compensation on page 45.

These executive-level perquisites represented approximately 1% of our CEO’s total compensation package and (on average) approximately 2% of our other NEOs’ total compensation package (calculated in the manner described on page 31).

As part of our REIT restructuring transactions in 2012, in addition to their voluntary reductions in base pay, Mr. Reed, Mr. Fioravanti and Mr. Westbrook voluntarily agreed to amend their employment agreements to remove the car allowance and annual financial planning cash perquisites previously paid to them. The severance agreements for Mr. Chaffin and Mr. Lynn do not provide for any perquisites.

When we recruited Mr. Reed to join our company in 2001, we agreed to pay Mr. Reed a retirement benefit pursuant to a Custom Mid-Career Supplemental Employee Retirement Plan, or SERP.

This benefit, which is described in Other Compensation Information—Nonqualified Deferred Compensation below, was in the committee’s view essential to attracting Mr. Reed to employment with us and has also proved valuable in securing his extended employment. The company has fully satisfied its funding obligations under the SERP by previously paying, in total, $3.5 million to Mr. Reed’s SERP account (as described below), and the current balance in Mr. Reed’s SERP account in excess of such amount is attributable to investment gains and losses associated with the assets in the SERP account (currently shares of our common stock).

Other Compensation Information

Stock Ownership and Retention Guidelines

The committee has adopted stock ownership guidelines for our senior executives. These guidelines are designed to encourage our executives to have a meaningful equity ownership in our company, thereby linking their interests with those of our stockholders. These guidelines provide that within five years of becoming a senior executive, each executive must own (by way of shares owned directly or indirectly (including through our 401(k) plan) and shares represented by unvested time-based RSUs, but not including unexercised stock options or performance-based RSUs) common stock with a value of either five times (5x) base salary for Mr. Reed, three times (3x) base salary for Mr. Fioravanti and Mr. Westbrook, and

two times (2x) base salary for the other NEOs and other executives subject to these guidelines. The guidelines also provide that if an executive is not currently in compliance with this guideline (regardless of the compliance grace period), the executive must retain 50% of the net shares (after satisfying any tax obligations and any required payments upon exercise) received upon vesting of RSUs or the exercise of stock options.

As of January 31, 2017 (the annual compliance date) all of the NEOs were in compliance with the guidelines, as follows:

Post-Termination Benefits

The committee believes that severance and change of control benefits assist in attracting and retaining qualified executives. The committee believes these benefits have proven particularly important in providing for continuity of management during the period following our REIT conversion and transition-related efforts. The levels of payments and benefits upon termination were set to be at a market-competitive level based upon each executive’s experience and level in the organization.

Mr. Reed, Mr. Fioravanti and Mr. Westbrook have employment agreements that provide for cash severance payments and certain other benefits if termination occurs without “cause” or if the executive leaves for “good reason” (as defined in their

employment agreement). These agreements also provide for cash compensation and certain other benefits in the event of termination following a “change of control” of the company (i.e., a “double trigger”). Mr. Chaffin and Mr. Lynn have severance agreements that provide for cash compensation and certain other benefits only in the event of termination following a “change of control” of the company (i.e., a “double trigger”).

In addition, no tax gross-ups are provided in connection with any severance payments to our NEOs. Information regarding these payments, including a definition of key terms and the amount of benefits that would have been received by our NEOs had termination occurred on December 31, 2016, is found under Potential Payments on Termination or Change of Control on page 52.

Tax Deductibility Considerations

The committee’s policy is to consider the tax treatment of compensation paid to our executive officers with appropriate rewards for their performance. Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code generally disallows public companies a tax deduction for their compensation in excess of $1.0 million paid to their chief executive officers and certain of their other executive officers unless designated performance and other requirements are met. We generally intend to design and administer executive compensation programs in a manner that will preserve the deductibility of compensation paid to our executive officers. However, the committee believes that stockholder interests are best served if it retains discretion and flexibility in awarding compensation to our NEOs, even where the compensation paid under such programs may not be fully deductible, and the committee has approved and may approve the payment of compensation that is outside the deductibility limitations of Section 162(m).

Because we qualify as a REIT for Federal income tax purposes, we expect to distribute at least 100% of our net taxable income each year and therefore will not pay Federal income tax on our REIT taxable income. As a result, based on the level of cash compensation paid to our executive officers, we do not expect that the possible loss of a Federal income tax deduction would materially impact our income tax liability. The committee will continue to monitor the tax and other consequences of our executive compensation

programs as part of its primary objective of ensuring that compensation paid to our executives is reasonable, performance-based and consistent with our goals.

Equity Grant Practices

Our omnibus incentive plan allows the committee to grant various types of equity awards to any eligible employee, including the NEOs. Annual equity awards to executives are approved by the committee and occur on the date of our first quarterly committee meeting of each year. Consistent with the terms of the 2016 plan, the committee has also delegated to the CEO the authority to make limited equity grants to new members of our management team, which are then ratified by the committee.

These awards are granted pursuant to a formula based on a specified dollar amount, with the number of shares for each RSU award determined by dividing the dollar amount by the closing market price of our stock on the date immediately prior to the grant date. Annual RSU awards for directors are approved by the committee and are granted on the date the director is elected to the Board. These awards are granted pursuant to a formula based on a specified dollar amount, with the number of shares for each RSU grant determined by dividing the dollar amount by the closing market price of our stock on the date immediately prior to the grant date.

Role of the Human Resources Committee and Management

The committee awards compensation to our NEOs and other executives consistent with our philosophy that compensation paid to our executives be fair, reasonable and competitive. The committee establishes and monitors compliance with our compensation philosophy, and the committee also oversees the development and administration of our compensation programs. Our management is responsible for the administration of our compensation programs once approved by the committee.

The committee makes all compensation decisions with respect to our NEOs, which are ratified by our Board. Our CEO annually reviews the performance of, and provides compensation recommendations for, each NEO (other than the CEO). In the case of the CEO, the CEO provides the committee with a self-

assessment of his performance. The committee then reviews these items and discusses and approves compensation for each NEO based on the considerations previously discussed.

For a complete description of the committee’s members and its responsibilities, as well as information regarding the authority of our CEO to make limited equity grants to new members of our management team, see Committees of the Board on page 21. You may also view the committee’s charter on our website at www.rymanhp.com (under “Corporate Governance” on the Investor Relations page).

Role of the Compensation Consultant

The committee has retained Aon Hewitt as its outside compensation consultant since 2013. During 2016, Aon Hewitt regularly attended committee meetings and reported directly to the committee on matters relating to compensation for our executives. During 2016 the committee requested that Aon Hewitt:

Advisory Vote on Executive Compensation

At our annual meeting in May 2016, we held a stockholder advisory vote on the compensation of our NEOs, commonly referred to as a “say-on-pay” vote. In our say-on-pay vote, approximately 95.5% of the stockholder votes, excluding broker non-votes, were cast in favor of the say-on-pay resolution. As the committee reviewed our compensation practices, it was mindful of the level of support our stockholders had previously expressed for our compensation programs, including our “pay for performance” philosophy and emphasis on variable compensation.

The committee intends to continue to consider the outcome of future advisory say-on-pay votes when making executive compensation decisions.

2017 NEO Compensation

At its February 22, 2017 meeting, the committee reviewed and approved the compensation to be paid to the NEOs for 2017, in light of our compensation philosophy described above.

Base Salary

The committee determined that base salaries for 2017 should be increased as follows:

Short-Term Cash Incentive Compensation

The committee also established criteria for short-term cash incentive compensation pursuant to our omnibus incentive plan.

The committee determined that each NEO will have the opportunity to earn the following percentage of his base salary based on the achievement of the AFFO goals (and, in the case of Mr. Reed, designated strategic objectives) established by the committee, at the following threshold, target and stretch levels: