It is little wonder that, while Rangers CEO Graham Wallace attempts to gloss over his club's recent £1.5 million loan for short-term operations, many of the club's supporters seem disgruntled with his explanation.
To listen to Wallace, who actually seems a reputable figure, this move by Rangers is a mere humdrum piece of business, a negotiation which is really nothing out of the ordinary. A bit of "tiding over", so to speak.
Another way of putting it, as many weary Ibrox followers are attesting, is that this football club continues to flounder on the rocks financially, and cannot yet even be self-sufficient.
Why else, with three months still to go until season-tickets sales start to accrue, must the bucket be passed around with a large sticker slapped on the side saying: "Please give generously."?
Wallace is being a tad economical with the truth when he says this loan deal involving Sandy Easdale and Laxey Partners "makes the most sense".
It might do, to a degree. But every pound is a prisoner for Rangers these days as the club lurches back to financial rectitude, right? So the loan cost of £150,000 to Laxeys, while small-beer in football these days, is still a charge Rangers could do without.
Also, listen to this from Wallace over the past 24 hours: "Big incomes [will be] generated early in the summer…we have some fairly significant income streams that will arise…"
For those Rangers fans in despair at the current Ibrox regime - and God knows there is considerable wailing about it - Wallace is here touching on one potentially prized weapon: season-ticket sales.
Figures vary for this, depending on which source you check, but Rangers supporters will shortly be pledging somewhere between £10-£12 million to the club for their renewed season books.
The question is, should they? Or will some supporters decide that the only way to force boardroom change is to starve the club's custodians of the very money which Wallace is openly saying he cannot wait to get his hands on?
The issue of a potential season-ticket boycott gives Rangers fans real power - that much is obvious - but is also fraught with anxiety. The fact is, while it would undoubtedly flex political muscle, a boycott undeniably would hurt the very club these supporters love.
More than one prominent Rangers supporter has told me in recent weeks that a season-ticket boycott may be considered but, as one put it, "only with the heaviest of hearts".
This would surely only be the last resort of a support at its wits end with the way their club was being run.
In this context Wallace might draw comfort from this: the Rangers support, despite everything their club has been through, in a way remains strangely apolitical.
There remains a deep-seated loyalty, but also a passivity, a lack of action, in a vast cross-section of the Ibrox support. The Rangers Supporters Trust, even after years of mayhem and mismanagement of their club, still cannot boast more than a pretty feeble membership of around 2,500.
For a club the size of Rangers, with its huge following, the RST and its various affiliates cannot seem to cut through the fog of apathy to rouse a support to action. There are loud, acerbic, highly vocal Rangers fans in cyberspace, but they are very much a minority.
This may, in fact, give Wallace the time he needs to turn the club around and win over his detractors. If Wallace is cute, he will make promises about "jam tomorrow" to Rangers fans. What he needs, more than anything, is time to get his sums and his balance-sheet right.
As for the perennial Dave King: he hovers on the side, he occasionally dangles his juicy carrots, but he still doesn't set out precisely when or how much he would commit to Rangers in any renewed cash-raising exercise.
Even those of us who doubt King's suitability, given his tax convictions in South Africa, can appreciate that he remains the great saviour-in-waiting for many Rangers fans.
King is loaded with wealth. That appears to be all that matters to his supporters in this Ibrox circus.
Meantime, Graham Wallace craves time and breathing space. And he will probably get it.
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