Who wants to work for British tennis?
What is going on at The Lawn Tennis Association?
The under-fire governing body of British tennis has lost another key member of its leadership team with Carl Maes, head of women's tennis, deciding to return to his native Belgium for personal reasons.
It follows the removal of head of men's tennis, Paul Hutchins, and a string of other unexplained departures from the well-funded organisation.
Two months ago, Gary Stewart left as head of coach support, again for personal reasons.
His predecessor, Bill Mountford, lasted just over a year in the job before suddenly deciding to return home to America.
"Personal reasons" were again cited when Kevan Taylor - the former Stockport County chief executive - left his position as finance director last month.
So why don't these people want to work for British tennis anymore?
Were they unhappy in their jobs? Did they not believe in the direction of the LTA or the leadership? Did they jump or were they pushed?
"Personal reasons" appears to be the British tennis equivalent of the equally murky "mutual consent" in football.
Meanwhile, one of the valued LTA strength and conditioning coaches will be on her way next month because she wants to return to Australia where, co-incidentally, head of sports science Ann Quinn bizarrely remains.
She hasn't been at her desk in Roehampton since the end of last year because she can't get a visa to return to Britain. Will she ever return?
And, the most important question of all, how is the LTA meant to sort out the deep-rooted problems facing British tennis if it can't keep its own house in order?
In 2006, they employed a leading headhunting agency to find "a world class leadership team". This costly "worldwide search" produced a group which has since been decimated by departures.
The LTA points out that people constantly come and go from all companies and organisations, but the vital difference is that British tennis is trying to build something from nothing and stability of leadership - consistency of direction - is surely essential.
Maes, who did a successful job improving the rankings of the leading British women, will see his old job effectively disappear. Steven Martens, another Belgian, continues to expand his empire as "player director" and will assume control of all professional performance tennis, assisted by head coaches Paul Annacone and Nigel Sears.
Martens insists he is confident that "under the guidance of Nigel Sears and the team, women's tennis will go from strength to strength".
Meanwhile, out in the shires and the regions, hundreds of long-serving, committed coaches and support staff knuckle down and try to make a difference for British tennis.
These coaches won't be resigning in two years time because they want to go to Belgium or Australia. The majority will still be feeding tennis balls to junior hopefuls long after the wealthier head-office crowd have departed in a haze of personal reasons.
Which brings us to the most interesting correspondence I've received in a long time, from a couple of small tennis clubs with some talented juniors.
These clubs wanted to play a couple of 10-year olds in the 12-and-under division of the National Junior Club League - kids who are decent players and, according to their coaches, ready for the step up in class.
But the response from head office? The players are too young.
According to LTA guidelines, 10-year-olds are meant to be playing mini-tennis with softer green balls so therefore can't play 12-and-under matches, where regular yellow balls are used.
The LTA has what it calls a competition framework and the advice for 10-year olds (sensible advice in many cases) is to stick to the softer, lower bouncing balls. But every child is different and, if the coaches believed the time was right for these particular kids, common sense surely should have prevailed.
Head office may wish to discover at which age Andy Murray moved from soft balls to regular yellow tennis balls.
If they are interested - if there is anyone left to be interested - the answer is seven.