Sometimes, particularly when emotions are running high, people must be protected from themselves and that being the case Rangers supporters may now have the best possible man calling the shots at their club.
Among the biggest concerns generated by Mike Ashley's acquisition of control of - or, at the very least, significant influence upon - the club's decision-making processes, is that his chief motivation is to look after his business interests rather than indulge any love of the club or even the sport.
However, a growing percentage of supporters have reached the conclusion that another man whose love of the club and the sport is undisputed should be sacked.
That was, in the way of these things, wholly understandable even before Wednesday evening's humbling Petrofac Training Cup defeat at Alloa, yet those calling for Ally McCoist's head may live to be grateful that Ashley has proved himself less likely than most to be influenced by such thinking.
The time for discounting sporting considerations in favour of cold, calculated business decisions at Ibrox is long overdue.
There has been the longest of windows available for the emergence of a Rangers equivalent of Fergus McCann - someone with the wherewithal and business nous to sort out the finances, allied to the love of the club to seek to keep the team competitive - and that has not happened.
Ashley represents the best alternative as he surveys figures that have long since piled up on only one side to such an extent that they can no longer be reasonably referred to as a balance sheet.
Those seeking McCoist's removal disparage Rangers' style of play, the reliance upon those in football dotage, the failure to seize upon the opportunity provided to develop a new, youthful squad comprised of the brightest Scottish talent as they have risen from the bottom of the division.
The manager's friends, meanwhile, point to his loyalty to the club throughout the most difficult times in its history and to the fact that he has so far done what was required in getting them back to the brink of the top flight in minimum time.
Ashley is likely to do his sums, calculate the cost both of removing the management team and of bringing in personnel who can be expected to do better, and swiftly come to the conclusion that to add so significantly to the £8.3m loss of the past year is wholly unjustifiable.
Rangers' situation is remarkably similar to that of their near neighbours at St Mirren who did, in spite of past evidence of his capacity to cope with pressure and respond, decide to sack a trophy-winning manager last summer, but in replacing him and promoting from within they apparently made a decision based on business sense as much as anything else.
As their supporters now agonise over whether Tommy Craig has the capacity to manage a football club or is merely a good coach who has been promoted beyond his capabilities they, too, should consider the alternative.
With Hibs languishing in the Championship, one of the main frustrations of the friend I accompanied to both play-off matches at the end of last season is that so much of the club's money has been spent in the last year paying off two managers while coming up with the wherewithal to hire another who, having previously been on the payroll at an English Premiership club, is unlikely to have been acquired cheaply.
Contemplating the vicissitudes of football and the way fans and pundits so swiftly and often irrationally turn on those managing clubs ' three defeats in a row will usually do it and one can be enough at the Old Firm if the opposition is considered sufficiently lowly - the briefest of checks offered a reminder of the ludicrous rapidity with which the stock of individuals can rise and fall.
Notably, at the beginning of the 2011/12 season, at odds of 9-2, one bookmaker cited three men as most likely to be the first sacked in that season's Scottish Premier League: Terry Butcher, then at Inverness, Danny Lennon at St Mirren and Kenny Shiels at Kilmarnock. Ally McCoist was a 14-1 rank outsider, incidentally.
Those odds were offered in response to the public perception of performance, yet, at the end of that season, Kilmarnock, under Shiels, were celebrating their first trophy win for 15 years. A year after that St Mirren, under Lennon, were lifting their first trophy in more than a quarter of a century.
Another few months on and Butcher departed Inverness to the sound of wailing and gnashing of teeth from locals who were devastated by his decision to join Hibs.
Back to Rangers, though, and the strongest indicator of what is likely to happen is the situation at the club that is allowed to admit that Ashley has the final say over its dealings.
What has happened at Newcastle United should also offer Rangers supporters considerable pause for thought as they call for their manager's head.
In fairness, such is collective respect within their ranks for McCoist's contribution to their history, the nature of those calls has never and is unlikely ever to become as vitriolic as the abuse heaped upon Alan Pardew.
Even so, they should perhaps consider long and hard what they wish for in the context of analysing what has happened in the Toon since Ashley rejected the latest demands for the head of a manager who has given him every excuse to get rid of him but who is, by Premier League and, indeed, Old Firm standards, both cheap and effective.
Ashley offers little or nothing in the way of public comment so is hard to analyse but you have to suspect that it has not been so much a case of holding his nerve as of dismissing the views of those who allow sentiment to over-ride judgement.
However, could Rangers afford right now to replace McCoist and his backroom team with an individual with the ability both to get more out of the current squad while scouting and recruiting in the way supporters want?
Think about that from a long-term business perspective rather than a short-term football one and the question almost seems rhetorical.
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