It will be critically reviewed by a series of inquiries, both official and unofficial. The sale, takeover and subsequent descent into administration are just part of the story. There are questions to be asked about a past beyond the acquisition of the club by Craig Whyte and there is a major query of just how the club will emerge from the present crisis.
The three stages of the narrative at Ibrox are:
Act I The Sir David Murray Years
(subtitled: How did Rangers get into this mess and is it a mess that has implications for the SPL?)
Act II The CRAIG WHYTE MONTHS
(Just what is this mess?)
Act III The POST-CRISIS ERA
(What is left after Rangers get out of this mess?)
The Scottish Football Association inquiry will address matters arising from Act II.
The official SFA statement says: ''The independent inquiry shall be afforded the same powers as the Scottish FA to investigate the potential breach of a number of its Articles of Association and shall present its findings to the board within two weeks.''
The length of the inquiry suggests that specific matters will be addressed, and quickly.
A cursory glance through the articles opens up obvious lines of inquiry.
Under the heading Official Return, for example, there is the stipulation that ''each director or member of board of management'' is a ''fit and proper person''. This ''fit and proper person'' should not be ''bankrupt or made any arrangement of composition with his creditors generally'' or ''has been disqualified as a director pursuant to the Companies Disqualification Act 1986 within the previous five years''.
A Rangers statement in November last year read: "Craig Whyte was disqualified to act as a director of Vital UK Limited in 2000 for a period of seven years." Whyte took over the club in May last year.
Under Financial Records in the articles, there are suitable areas of exploration. For example, under clause 10: ''All clubs and recognised football bodies shall keep and maintain for a minimum period for five years detailed financial books and records in connection with their trading activities including without prejudice to the foregoing generality details of the ground and stand admissions, members tickets, turnstile arrangements and all other related activities''.
A subsequent clause states: ''The Board may arrange for an inspection of all such books, records and details for any purpose . . .''
It adds: ''Furthermore, all payments whether made by the club or otherwise, which are to be made to a player solely relating to his playing activities, must be fully recorded within the relevant written agreement with the player prior to submission to this Association . . .''
This brings the spotlight back to Act I and employee benefits trusts. This, of course is the nub of ''the big tax case'' and its ramifications cannot possibly be investigated within the two-week timeframe of the SFA inquiry. If Rangers are found guilty on EBTs, the club will face financial penalties that have ranged in estimation as high as £75m. It would also open up a line of inquiry into financial fair play during this period.
Act I, the Murray years, would have to be investigated by a subsequent inquiry with wide-ranging powers.
There is, increasingly, the appetite among football clubs in Scotland to explore the Murray era, specifically the payment of EBTs. Any SFA inquiry on this subject would be open to charges of conflict of interest, given that the professional game body includes Peter Lawwell, chief executive of Celtic and Rod Petrie, chairman of Hibernian.
Senior clubs in and outside the SPL are prepared to move on calling for an independent inquiry, with an extensive remit and with members drawn from outwith the world of football.
The end of the Rangers crisis narrative is not in sight. Indeed, it has barely begun. All the headlines have so far reflected the past, whether it be the Ticketus issue, the EBT payments or the precise details of the sale and takeover of the club.
Act III concerns the future and it promises to be highly intriguing. There is the issue of whether Whyte can survive as owner but this is dwarfed by another concern: how and where will a diminished Rangers play their football?
Whether Rangers emerge from the crisis on the back of company voluntary agreements or resurface, the reality is that there will be a united purpose to make sure the club remains part of the SPL.
The situation is this: rival clubs, embittered at what they see as not playing on a level playing field, want to punish Rangers but not so drastically that the Ibrox club is excluded from the top table. They will be invited to dinner but asked to partake of more meagre pickings.
The pragmatic mood is that Rangers are a necessary part of the SPL. The club is financially crippled now but still has the capability to flex a fiscal muscle. Television deals are negotiated on the basis of four Old Firm matches, a visit of Rangers commands premier rate on hospitality packages and the very existence of football at Ibrox has a knock-on effect for ancillary businesses.
The balancing act for the SPL is how to deal with Rangers severely without blighting the club's future permanently. A newco Rangers would be asked to take a long-term points penalty and may pay further when television monies are distributed.
The newco Rangers would be in a vulnerable position, craving SPL football but having to pay a premium for it in terms of title hopes and, perhaps, revenue.
The inquiry in Act III would be restricted to a simple term of reference. It is this: how high will be the price of entry into the SPL for newco Rangers?
This would be the final scene. First, though is the SFA inquiry. It will be far from the last word.