What do Rangers fans see when they look at pictures of Mike Ashley?
Yes, yes, for some of them the answers are unprintable. Others, who exist in numbers which are difficult to determine, quietly believe he represents qualities they have been yearning for since 2012.
Ashley owning Rangers would mean stability and security and even a greater sense of transparency than the club has known for a long, long time. Most fans would agree on that. It's just that it will come at a price that some think is worth paying, and others emphatically do not.
There is a blog written by a Newcastle fan which described Ashley as "a pathogen infecting Newcastle United for the benefit of his company".
Plenty on Tyneside are appalled by the way Ashley goes about his business. They warn that he will strangle Rangers and cheapen the club's name in a remorseless crusade to advance his Sports Direct retail chain.
They argue his modus operandi is now established: prey on a distressed brand/club, buy a foothold of power and remove board figures who are opposed to him, invest more on his own terms, turn the ground into a Sports Direct theme park, maintain the club with limited investment and find young players who can be sold for profit.
Bluntly, some Rangers fans are horrified by the thought of this and reckon it would cripple the club's potential and hand Celtic ten-in-a-row.
Others aren't so troubled by Ashley, or at least they are prepared to give him time. He'll pay the bills. He'll keep the lights on. He'll have Rangers living within their means. The great unknown here is whether he intends to invest more in Rangers, relatively speaking, than he has at Newcastle.
Ashley spends just enough to keep Newcastle in the Barclays Premier League, just enough to keep them on the main stage under the spotlights of English football's incredible worldwide broadcasting deals.
Newcastle fans resent him because of the conversion of St James's Park into a tawdry advertising vehicle for Sports Direct and for what they see as his refusal to spend more than the bare minimum.
They don't detect any ambition in him to win anything. To get Newcastle into the Champions League would take an enormous amount of sustained investment with a high risk of failure. Rangers is another matter. A far easier, far cheaper route to the Champions League group stage is available by winning the league in Scotland.
The most recent set of Sports Direct annual accounts outlined Ashley's core principles. "Developing brand awareness is a key factor in ensuring a sustainable future and the appropriate level of investment in advertising and technology is an important component towards achieving this."
That explains the wallpapering of the Sports Direct logo all over his grounds.
"The board's aim to expand further into Europe has been a key strategic driver for a number of years which has proved extremely successful."
Could that hint at wanting a football vehicle to promote Sports Direct in Europe, ie Rangers?
Plastering Ibrox with Sports Direct branding - even renaming the place the Sports Direct Stadium - surely would have limited value if that exposed the name only to those tuning in to Scottish domestic football.
If he wants European exposure via Rangers he would have to invest in the club to get it into the Champions League, and that would mean winning the league and, inevitably, winning over supporters.
Ashley doesn't need Newcastle to win things for that club to be of use to him - mere survival in the top flight achieves his goals. That does not apply to Rangers. He could quickly make them serious contenders to win the Scottish league and reach the Champions League group stage without making a dent in his loose change.
Like or loathe Ashley he is a bona fide billionaire whose money was legitimately accumulated and who - despite his obsessive secrecy - is relatively transparent in how he goes about his business. When did Rangers last have someone like that in charge?
David Murray was a hero and then a villain to Rangers supporters. Craig Whyte too. Charles Green was a villain, hero then villain again. By then attitudes were so hardened and cynical that just about every potential saviour was treated with enormous suspicion. But while Dave King adopted a disastrous self-imposed exclusion from the shareholding, and Brian Kennedy arrived like the guy who buys a lottery ticket at 7.31pm, Ashley increased his power at Rangers incrementally.
If Derek Llambias soon becomes his man-on-the-ground at Ibrox - replacing chief executive Graham Wallace, who is done for - then expect a certain clumsiness towards supporters' sensitivities and hostility or obstruction towards the media. Neither of which will matter to Ashley.
There will be opposition to sacking Ally McCoist as manager, too, although that would be by no means universal. It is not McCoist's competence that makes him vulnerable, it is his salary. The £2m loan which has strengthened Ashley's power in the Ibrox boardroom is enough to tide the club over for only another two or three months.
Financing the club beyond that will involve two things: cost cutting (which makes McCoist and his backroom team highly vulnerable) and/or further investment from Ashley. How much there is of the latter, and on what terms, will entirely determine how he is seen by Rangers supporters in the coming months.
Already there is certainty around Ibrox about one thing, though. Rangers are fully under Ashley's shadow now.
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