Don't think you quite understand the basic economic rationale behind sacking a manager on a whim; - you need to firstly compensate that manager, - then go through hoops to bring in someone else, - (who might not be any better) and pay them the same salary.

Better by far, - to spend a fraction of that enormous outlay on bringing in 3 or 4 players and at least seeing if that makes a difference. Alternatively you pay off Naysmith, invest in a new manager and you still have to bring in 3 or 4 new players.

Logic tells me that we stick with the present manager, get the players that a blind man can see we need and then re-assess the situation.

If at that point, there is no betterment, - say Queens are adrift at the bottom of the league by the beginning of November, - then urgent action such as replacing the manager would be an obvious option.