Mike Ashley has once more made his intention clear: he wants Rangers within his grasp, and the power, influence and potential income which would come with it.
With his call for an Ibrox EGM whereby he hopes to remove the club CEO, Graham Wallace, and another director, Philip Nash, Ashley is trying to block another potential potentate, Dave King, from claiming Rangers as his own.
The Ashley versus King drama has emerged in recent months as the key battle which will determine Rangers' future. And it requires a straight knockout blow from one upon the other. Rangers, seemingly, cannot accommodate both.
Ashley remains thoroughly intriguing. He is a minted man, with an estimated wealth of £3.6bn, who splits opinion wherever he goes. Purely in business terms, he is a prolific success story.
At Newcastle United, the club he bought in 2007 for £134m, Ashley tends to be loathed by supporters, though this isn't always the clearest signpost to the truth.
The St James's Park club are without a major domestic trophy in 59 years, and derided across England for it, and supporters believed that Ashley would put a stop to this by means of his hefty cheque-book.
Instead, having loaned the club over £100m in interest-free loans, Ashley has insisted on Newcastle living within its means, and has converted the club into a profit-making operation for three years in a row.
That said, the spectre of Sports Direct, Ashley's vast sports retail empire, looms large. He is, it would appear, into Newcastle United more for his own business benefits than he is for the club. Yet this is a balance which many football club owners have to strike.
Ashley's Sports Direct policies at Newcastle, including rebranding the club's stadium, have often looked garish. He also currently has control of the sale of Rangers strips, a form of 'outsourcing' by Rangers which many believe diminishes the Ibrox club.
All that notwithstanding, the question remains…could Ashley ever be good for Rangers?
The simple answer to that is, yes, he could be. Fans are right to be wary of Ashley, and question his methods, yet there is a wealth and clout about him which, if he so chooses, could greatly benefit Rangers.
The Ibrox club needs a shrewd business mind. It also needs a fresh cash injection - preferably a large one. Rangers also need - either via a King or an Ashley - someone who will invest at the bottom and stay with the club as it grows into a potential Champions League aspirant.
For all the concerns about Ashley, he ticks all of these boxes. In a business sense, moreover, Rangers FC only really makes sense for him if he nurtures the club's brand to its previous dominant position.
It would be stating the obvious to say that, for Ashley, having control of Rangers would be beneficial to him. That only truly works, however, if he also restores the club.
Ashley has previous for laying out largesse - £100m in Newcastle's case - in soft loans. This isn't charity - he wants his money back - but it certainly eases a football club's strains.
If Ashley is willing, as is reputed, to offer Rangers even a fraction of that in similar loans, it would greatly stabilise the club.
In terms of his current power-strategy, Ashley is also acting in one other significant way. While Dave King talks and talks, Ashley has bought into Rangers. With his 9% shareholding, it has given him a leverage at the club which King, strangely, has resisted.
Meanwhile, the post IPO-carnage at Rangers, with various factions posturing around the club, has left supporters deeply frustrated.
With this Ashley intervention, the game now among fans is about second-guessing which Rangers investors might vote which way, in favour of either Ashley/Easdale or King/Wallace at an EGM or AGM. It is a horrible mess.
Up to 13% of Rangers fans actually own the club, and the notion of fan-ownership continues to flourish. Right now, though, in the Ashley v King context, it seems a distant dream.
Ashley certainly has the means. The question will always come back to this: would he be as good for Rangers as Rangers would be for him?
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