A few months back I had a conversation with a City analyst, who loves football, and who has been watching this Rangers saga from afar.
"City analysts", by the way, are fallible. I'm not quoting this guy as if his word is gospel on Rangers. Nonetheless, this is what he told me about Dave King's aspirations for control of the club.
"It is the Nomad [the club's Nominated Adviser] that will be the key to it all for King," he said. "The stock market has to be kept clean - that is one reason the Nomads are there on the AIM. In my view many Nomads will harbour reservations about King, given his recent convictions in South Africa."
I have kept re-playing that conversation in my head since the announcement that WH Ireland, the beleaguered Rangers Nomad, removed itself from the scene on Wednesday, thus suspending shares-trading in the Rangers International Football Club.
It was just one more embarrassment for a club that is now stretching the word "farce" to its very limits.
Between King and WH Ireland it was in fact a two-way street. King knew of the Nomad's reservations about him, and last month turned the situation on its head, claiming the Nomad itself was "not fit and proper" and was set to be replaced. So no love was lost on either side.
King's "two hurdles of integrity" at Rangers - being deemed suitable by both the London Stock Exchange and the Scottish FA - have proved more troubling than he has previously blithely stated.
With WH Ireland gone, King can certainly shop around until he finds a Nomad to take him on - and there are plenty out there who would have the chance to claim the lucrative ticket of Rangers as their client.
But if market analysts are correct, a Nomad taking on Rangers with King at the helm may also be taking a risk. The Nomad himself has to be seen by the Alternative Investments Market to be doing its duty in keeping the market clean.
Of course, everyone knows the alternative to all this - that of de-listing Rangers.
In this case the club would just revert to what it was before, an unlisted PLC. In this scenario King would have no cause for a Nomad to be onside, so that particular monkey would be off his back. Indeed, this might suit him very well.
That would just leave the SFA to deal with his "fit and proper" suitability, in line with their regulations.
On this score, enough has been said already. My view is, Dave King is an all-singing, all-dancing "fail" in terms of the SFA's Article 10.
On two of its torchlight issues - convictions worthy of a prison-sentence and involvement in a previous insolvency at a club - King falls foul. It is impossible to soft-soap it.
That said, this is a continuing nightmare for the SFA. They want this Rangers saga resolved, and King appears to be the club's only option.
Others - Jim McColl, Bill Miller and more - have come and gone from the scene. At Rangers it is Dave King or�what?
My money is on the SFA wilting over King's "fit and proper" status, and duly waving him through. There will be scorn heaped on the organisation for it, but that will only be one more bruise to the face.
It will be wrong, but I can't see otherwise.
For Rangers fans who back King - and there are legions of them - this is all highly frustrating. He has means, he has wealth, he has the popular vote, he appears to have plans for the club.
The fans' argument is: "For God's sake, would people just get off the club's back, and let us move on." They attest to constant persecution.
Others call it an unrelenting persecution-complex.
If Dave King is waved through, and is free at last to set to work on Rangers, then a point will be reached to let him get on with that. Rangers have suffered enough. Some kind of rebuilding of the club must take place.
But, until then, the integrity issue over King will linger. As much as he declares otherwise, it won't go away.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article