I never thought I would see the day when there would be supporters outside Ibrox collecting money in buckets to ensure Rangers' survival, but that is what it has come to.
Administrators Duff & Phelps admitted on Friday that the club need to cover a shortfall of £1 million a month just to see out the season.
Whether it is through having "Save Rangers" buckets outside the ground or whatever else, the fans can be relied on to rally round. They would go to the end of the earth for their club.
All football fans are the same, not just Rangers ones. You would not believe the kind of thing they will do to raise money. It was fans and local businesses who raised the cash that saw Dundee through the creditors voluntary arrangement (CVA) that got them out of administration.
Apart from turning up at games in numbers, they had fundraising nights, and even a calendar of female fans, and it may be Rangers fans have to go down the same sort of road.
I know supporters might be wary about contributing in case the money feeds its way through to Craig Whyte, but that wouldn't happen. It would go straight to the administrators to help pay wages. It would not be frittered away.
I have seen some administrators in the past go in and liaise with owners, but in this case they are distancing themselves from Whyte, so I don't think the fans need to worry about that. These guys are fighting to keep the club alive.
I know Sir David Murray largely had to underwrite his own share issue a few years back, while Celtic fans raised tens of millions of pounds in 1994. But if it is to save their club, the Rangers fans will come up with the money. There is no doubt in my mind.
It can be difficult to mobilise such a large support but one fans' website has at least gathered pledges totalling millions of pounds. The various Rangers supporters' bodies out there need to get together and amalgamate and the fans have to realise an instant reaction is required. They need to organise themselves and start collecting money now. They can't afford to wait about for even another week or so.
Some might argue it would be best for the club to be liquidated and come back debt-free and playing under a different name. But fans don't think along those lines. They don't want the club to come back under a new name. It is about identity and history.
People might also say the money the fans could raise would be a drop in the ocean with a potential £50m tax bill possibly round the corner. But that bridge can be crossed if we come to it; for now it is about taking every step possible to ensure ongoing survival.
Perhaps the ideal solution from the fans' point of view would be if Rangers ended up with some kind of supporter ownership. After saving Dundee, the fans there now effectively run the club.
Everybody can see how successful Barcelona, a members' club, are and there are clubs in Germany run in a similar way, so why not? It would be the safer option for the future of the club because I don't think fans would overspend at put everything at risk.
There are too many clubs where things have gone wrong when a supposed benefactor has been involved – Calum Melville, Whyte, and you could probably throw David Murray into that mix.
Rangers in administration is like a wounded animal bleeding to death when a quick kill might be more merciful. Usually in such situations redundancies are announced quickly and while that may not be great for those involved – it certainly wasn't for me at Dundee – leaving it hanging for the best part of three weeks is horrific.
I salute the players for voting for wage deferrals but apart from the young boys and maybe one or two older guys I think they will all get other clubs.
With every day that goes by I feel more pessimistic, not just about Rangers' future, but the rest of Scottish football as well: look at Dunfermline, or Hearts.
I was brought up supporting Rangers and have worked for and with them, but the longer the current situation goes on, the more I fear for them. The only cause for optimism is the ongoing support of the fans. If they are asked to help save the club, they will find a way.
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