TESTING times loom for Rupert Lowe.

The Saints chairman has apparently long been considering a reform of the coaching structure at St Mary's and now has his chance following the departure of Paul Sturrock.

Speculation is rife that he will bring in a director of football to work alongside head coach Steve Wigley, although many suspect that Lowe may take on a greater role himself.

But before moving on, fans will demand that he first takes a few steps back.

They want answers following the day of drama at St Mary's yesterday. And there are questions that Lowe simply cannot avoid.

What's more, if he answers them, he should be more expansive than he was in yesterday's statement to announce the demise of Sturrock.

Lowe said: "Management in the Premier League is highly pressured and when this pressure is compounded by a constant stream of negative and unfair media coverage, which has taken on a life of its own recently, the position becomes untenable.

"Those people responsible for perpetrating this unsatisfactory situation, often in return for financial reward, should take a long hard look at themselves."

No one knows exactly what had been going on behind the scenes, but to single out 'the media' as a central explanation for the departure of a manager just isn't good enough

As recently as Saturday, Lowe, himself, even said: "The board runs the club not the media." Obviously something had changed by yesterday morning.

In any case, blaming the media is a complete cop-out. In fact, it's pretty much the same cop-out Lowe tried when he hesitated over the possible reappointment of Glenn Hoddle back in March.

Yes, there have been unfavourable headlines surrounding Sturrock in recent weeks, but it was hardly dominating the attention of the national press.

Indeed, the future of James Beattie was attracting far more negative press interest.

In any case, Lowe most know that the stories surrounding Sturrock's precarious position were not being dreamt up by the media, but werebeing written for a very good reason. Namely, that they were largely true, as events yesterday proved.

The Saints chairman could have ended all the speculation he so claims to dislike by very simply stating that Sturrock had his full support.

He didn't because he clearly couldn't and that was why the negative publicity continued.

It seems that it was concern about Sturrock within the club which largely drove the situation and not the press.

It is, of course, very possible that there were good reasons for Sturrock to leave. If so, the fans deserve to know.

If nothing more convincing is forthcoming, Lowe will have to take a fair amount of criticism on the chin.

After all, he appointed Sturrock and the fact is that Steve Wigley is now his seventh manager (or head coach) in getting on for eight years as chairman.

Yes, there were a range of factors surrounding the departures of Graeme Souness, Dave Jones, Glenn Hoddle, Stuart Gray, Gordon Strachan and now Sturrock, but the only common denominator is Lowe.

He has done a huge amount for Saints, not least overseeing the move to St Mary's from The Dell and keeping the club on a sound financial footing.

But Lowe has failed to bring much-needed stability to perhaps the most important position at any football club.

Saints will not say whether Sturrock was actually sacked or whether he decided to leave, perhaps because he felt he was not getting the full support of his chairman.

If Sturrock was axed - only two games into a season - Lowe should be thankful that his own position is not being judged with such stringency.

For now though, the time for blaming others has passed and the time for some honest answers has arrived.