With the French media claiming Claude Puel has been in talks with Saint-Etienne, but silence from St Mary's about the fabled end of season review, the question needs to be asked.
At the start of the year rumours where doing the rounds that Claude Puel and his family were not happy in England, back then his stock amongst the fans was low but a League Cup Final appearance got many back on side and hoping that he had learn't from his mistakes and could take the club forward.
But since Wembley he did not seem to take charge, he seemed content to let things drift towards the end of the season and even seemed willing to gamble with missing out on a top ten finish by some strange selections in the final games.
In the end it all worked out, but purely because the likes of West Brom were worse that us in the run in and it wasn't the grandstand finish that Puel's supporters were hoping for to silence his growing army of critics.
The club seemed to realise the mood of the fans and put out stories to the media that there would be a review of his performance after the season had ended , this seemed more an attempt to persuade people to renew their season tickets than anything else.
But in the week since the last day defeat against Stoke City there has been deafening silence from St Mary's, knowing the club's penchant for strategy, you would have thought that fairly soon after the final whistle that a decision would be made so planning could be made for the following season.
So why has nothing been done, if Puel was going to be sacked then surely he should have been put out of his misery quickly and likewise if he was going to stay then it needs to be announced and got out there.
Meanwhile in France reports say he has been speaking to Saint-Etienne and that is counteracted by reports in England Saints themselves have been sounding out other options.
This beggars the question whether Saints and Puel have had an agreement to part company in place for some time, certainly weeks if not months.
This would explain why the delay in announcing a decision, the club would be keen to save face on the appointment of Puel and likewise the way to do it would be a controlled parting of the ways with Puel going to a new job before being sacked and a new manager ready to step straight in and both club and manager keeping their reputations intact.
I cannot see any other explanation as to why there has been a delay otherwise.