ACCORDING to the old saying, money can't buy happiness.

It doesn't buy trust either, at least not when it comes to newbies on the scene trying to buy Rangers. A previous American businessman dipped his toe in the water about buying into Ibrox only to head for the hills partly because of the hostile reaction he provoked from supporters. Robert Sarver's experience has been different to that of Bill Miller - who wasn't seen nor heard of again after 2012 - but it seemed he has been surprised by the suspicion shown towards his unsuccessful bid of £18 million for a controlling stake and yesterday's improved offer of £20m including a £6.5m short-term loan.

"There appears to be some speculation in online fans' forums, prompting questions from the media asking if Mr Sarver is working in conjunction with other figures associated with Ibrox," said a Sarver spokesman. "Let me assure you he is not. To be very clear, Mr Sarver has never met or spoken to Mike Ashley, Sandy Easdale or James Easdale. And for the complete avoidance of doubt, he has never met or spoken to Charles Green or Craig Whyte. He is not working with, acting for, or alongside any of these individuals. Mr Sarver is acting on his own behalf, although he has repeatedly said that if he succeeds in acquiring a majority stake in Rangers he would like to work with others who clearly have the best long-term interests of Rangers at heart."

In truth, there have been no skeletons in the cupboard so far and the biggest questions around the owner of the Phoenix Suns basketball team are not about his background nor the authenticity of his wealth, but the odd aspects of his takeover bid and its timing.

He has said that if he acquired a majority stake he would assist those who have Rangers' long-term interests at stake. But what if he doesn't manage that, as seems certain? Would he have any interest in financially helping Dave King or the Douglas Park/George Letham/George Taylor group without control over them? If the answer is yes he could become a significant player in this ownership saga, by persuading some other stakeholders to sell to him. If not, and he insists on a controlling interest or nothing, it is hard to see how Sarver will last in this story. His bid needs 75 per cent approval from the existing shareholders and it is impossible to believe he will get that. The New Year purchases by King and Park/Letham/Taylor changed the share dynamic and made acceptance of an outsiders' takeover bid less likely, not more.

But Sarver need not be in league with Ashley and the Easdales, nor with chairman David Somers, to be useful to the board he wants to buy-out. Some who are close to the matter speculate that the board - which has said it will issue a response to Sarver's bid imminently - could announce that the American's takeover was blocked by King and/or the Park group. Those factions could then be presented as the obstacles to an investment which would have saved Rangers from insolvency, potentially damaging their reputation and credibility with some supporters. King and the Park group believe they may be nudging closer to the magical 50-plus percent support required to secure a controlling interest, but the allegiance of some of the minor shareholders cannot be taken for granted.

Sarver's £18m and his £20m. King's £16m. Park/Letham and Taylor's £6.5m. Brian Kennedy's £3m. All that money floating around Rangers - all of it rejected or likely to be - while the club gasps for breath on a life support machine. Sandy Easdale loaned £500,000 and got it back within days when the first instalment of the Lewis Macleod transfer fee arrived this week. What pays the next bills? Does Easdale put that £500,000 back in again (for what would be the third time in a year, having twice got his money back so far)? Does the board manage to pull off a deal for a short-term loan from another party? It is a desperate hand-to-mouth situation which makes it highly likely that an EGM will be called soon by the Park group or more probably King to demand a vote on the creation of an entirely new board. When an EGM is called the board has 21 days to arrange it and another 21 days to actually put it on. Right now Rangers do not have 42 days' worth of money.

What they may well go through, in that timeframe, is the rejection of Sarver's second offer, another crisis loan, an EGM, some frantic totting up to see if King, Park et al can nudge over 50 percent, and the chance of an end game in this interminable power struggle.

* The Rangers Supporters Trust has purchased a further 100,000 shares to take its stake to over one percent. "A recent influx of new members and contributors to Buy Rangers has allowed us to make this purchase and with the continued support of the Rangers community we hope to increase our shareholding further in the near future," said an RST spokesman. "All funds from the sale of Red and Black and Lion Brand shirts have been retained for use in a future share issue. We will continue to work closely with those pushing for change at Rangers."