THOSE who insist Dave King and the Douglas Park consortium are working independently of each other won't find too much resistance from most Rangers supporters.

Over 30% of Rangers snapped up by two separate groups within 24 hours of each other, after months of inactivity? A happy coincidence.

Most supporters could not have been more enthusiastic about developments if Graeme Souness had stood at Ibrox's front door with a winning Euromillions ticket. Perhaps the Takeover Panel won't swallow the story that these these two mutually sympathetic factions have not worked in concert, but any difficulties that may cause would be neither unexpected for those involved, nor insurmountable.

For fans, the very emergence of the groups was what mattered. The Rangers support, propelled by organisations like the Rangers Supporters Trust and RangersFirst, both of which are assiduously building the level of the fans' shareholding, are outsiders to the power plays but will assist King and the Park/George Letham/George Taylor factions in all attempts to oust the Easdales, the shareholders they represent, and Mike Ashley.

The eventual aim, however long-term and even unrealistic it may be, should be for Rangers to stand on its own two feet without ever having to rely on a sugar daddy like King (who is the one with the serious money). The anguished cries that Rangers should never again be at the mercy of single rich owner - so vociferous and heartfelt when the tailspin began under David Murray - are no less valid today. Most clubs have supporters who fiercely oppose the idea of control being in one man's hands when things are bad, only to be quickly conscripted when another saviour emerges who seems to be a) rich and b) inclined to spend.

That is how they see King. His convictions for non-payment of tax provoke amusingly extreme and predictable reactions. That he was convicted on 41 different counts in South Africa and had to pay £44.6 million to help avoid jail is regarded as one of the crimes of the century by Rangers' most agitated critics, and as the equivalent of being a little late with his library books by their own fans. All of this is largely irrelevant in terms of his involvement at Ibrox (his unhindered purchase of 14.6% of the shares proved that six days ago). Even if the SFA ever questions his "fit and proper" suitability to be a director, given that he served on a previous Rangers board within five years of an insolvency event, he can hold power at Ibrox without official title. Whatever his attitude to paying his taxes, no-one believes King wishes anything but the best for Rangers.

The same goes for Park, Letham and Taylor. The supporters' soaring enthusiasm for that quartet is entirely understandable given the charlatans they've had to deal in the past. The current Rangers regime has treated supporters with contempt, haemorrhaged money and lurched from one emergency bail-out after another.

If King, Park et al do eventually assume control they don't have much to beat. But being "well-meaning" and being "Rangers men" must not exempt them from scrutiny and accountability (and nor should they feel entitled to that). Ten months ago King outlined his vision for Rangers: "You cannot compete against Celtic unless you match their cost structure. Unless we make a step change on the cost side then we won't compete with Celtic. Rangers won't fail but they could succeed financially and be a small club. To me, that is a personal failure because I expect Rangers to be the Rangers I know."

Competing with Celtic is an irresistible clarion call but what King fondly calls "the Rangers I know" is also the Rangers whose incontinent spending sent it towards freefall. Celtic and Rangers have similar fundamentals but, for now, Celtic have the advantage of multiple recent Champions League campaigns. Rangers need to build their way back rather than splurge. King saying that he would see it as a personal failure if Rangers succeeded financially, but with less football success, is exactly the mindset which led them towards catastrophe in the first place.

Supporters are right to endorse King, Park and the others. But they should never again see any Ibrox regime as a panacea, nor be unquestioning disciples of it.

And Another Thing...

If there is any such thing as smart money swirling around Scottish football it surely is being placed on Celtic being champions by around ten points. Aberdeen or United could win the league but there is a world of difference between acknowledging that they can and believing that they will. Both of those clubs have players and managers of real substance and by reaching 40 points after 19 games (the half-way point in the season) Aberdeen theoretically put themselves on course to finish the campaign with 80: in 2013 Celtic won the league with 79.

Celtic are there to be challenged. Aberdeen have the belief which comes from proving themselves as trophy winners. They have beaten Celtic home and away in the past year in games which mattered. This is not Neil Lennon's Celtic.

But we go through this annually. We will know we have a title race when the date on discussions like this is the 5th of April, not January. In the meantime there is the sobering reality that Celtic's wage bill is greater than the rest of the Premiership clubs combined, and money talks.