I don't take too much issue with that position, but I do think it's shortsighted in this way.
I'll use a football analogy receiver. If I had Terrell Owens as my wide receiver, and I had the opportunity to replace him with Hines Ward, or Andre Johnson, or Larry Fitzgerald, I'd do it in a heartbeat. So would just about any other football team in the NFL.
None of those three have better experience or are more qualified, and it can be argued by many that they are no better than Terrell Owens, but because of all of the "baggage" that comes with Terrell, there are a lot of reasons to make that deal.
So, honest, clear-headed, shareholders, IMO, would certainly have plenty of reasons for supporting change of the existing players, EVEN IF the considered replacements only have equal experience, or can offer experience in other areas that the current members lack, but don't necessarily have the same experience in the areas that the current members do.
