SCEPTICISM is rampant at Rangers these days so the claim that Mike Ashley's £2million loan has staved off the imminent threat of administration MK2 has been greeted with natural suspicion.

Yes, the Sports Direct magnate's money will ensure running costs will be met and wages are paid at the Ibrox club next month.

And, yes, the billionaire English businessman's promise of future funding should mean the SPFL League One champions survive to the end of the season and beyond.

Yet, with Dave King fronting a group prepared to stump up £16m and Brian Kennedy also presenting a £3m rescue package, there were alternatives.

Graham Wallace, whose removal as chief executive was confirmed today, assured players last month there was no reason to be concerned about their livelihoods.

With so many viable options available to the Glasgow giants, it is now easy to see why Wallace was so confident that a further cash crisis could be avoided.

Talk of potential administrators being contacted was certainly alarming. But was there ever really any danger of such a drastic move being made? It's doubtful. Rangers would have incurred a 25-point penalty for entering administration again and that would have ended their hopes of winning promotion back to the top flight this season.

The financial implications of that would have beeen grave. Would shareholders, then, really have allowed their hefty investments to be jeopardised in such a manner?

So the portrayal of Ashley as some sort of knight in shining armour riding to the rescue of stricken Rangers is not being accepted by the vast majority of fans. Not while others were itching to get involved.

Most believe the Newcastle United owner - who currently controls the Rangers retail

division and owns the naming rights to Ibrox - is focused on protecting and enhancing his lucrative contracts.

Contracts struck during Green's time in charge are described by Wallace as "onerous" in his 120-day review of company business in April.

A large number of fans would prefer to see South Africa-based financier King, despite his tax convictions last year, come on board.

The multi-millionaire grew up in Castlemilk supporting the Gers. He and his associates are more interested with seeing the club flourish on and off the park than with making a profit on his outlay.

Can the same be said for Ashley? Director Philip Nash, the former financial expert at Arsenal and Liverpool, stood down last week when the King package was rejected because he felt it was the best on the table.

However, King's recapitalisation proposal would have diluted the value of existing shareholdings and reduced the influence of current investors.

And it was rejected for those reasons. Ultimately, those who had, unlike King, actually invested some of their hard-earned in the club - the likes of Ashley, Sandy Easdale and Laxey Partners - had the final say.

Not every Rangers fan at the 3-0 triumph over Dumbarton at the Bet Butler Stadium on Saturday joined in with the anti-Ashley chanting. But the fact that some voiced their unhappiness told a story. There have been protests outside Sports Direct stores and threats to boycott his merchandise by dissident supporters due to his purchase of the stadium naming rights for £1.

For a company that made profits of over £150m in the last financial year, Ashley is unlikely to lose much sleep over these actions.

Nevertheless, it would be in his company's interests to win round a support that has grown weary of boardroom in-fighting. And it is certainly well within his power to do so.

The enigmatic 50-year-old has lavished hundreds of millions of pounds on Newcastle since taking over at St James's Park seven years ago.

It would take a tiny fraction of that sum to make a key difference to the fortunes of Rangers. Ally McCoist's men did well against Dumbarton at the weekend and goals from Kenny Miller, Lee Wallace and Kris Boyd maintained the pressure on second tier leaders Hearts.

Subsidising the recruitment of new players in the January transfer window and boosting their chances of winning the

title and completing "The Journey" would ingratiate Ashley with the support enormously.

Newcastle fans are no lovers of Ashley. But many of their Rangers counterparts will reserve judgment on a man who has an estimated personal fortune of £2bn and a highly impressive CV. Sure, his priority is his business. But if his involvement is seen to transform an institution that has suffered at the hands of chancers and fly-by-nights in the last few years, then he will be tolerated and possibly even supported.

Conversely, snapping up the rights to the Rangers trademark and club crest - as he has tried to do - would not endear him to fans already staying away in droves.

Ashley currently owns an 8.92% stake in Rangers and has a written agreement with the SFA not to increase his interest above 10%. Under the terms of a deal struck back in 2012, he is not allowed to exert "decisive influence" over the running of the club.

His bid to have Nash and Wallace removed at an EGM would appear to breach that. The new agreement allows him to

appoint two men on the board and former Newcastle chief executive Derek Llambias and business partner Stephen Lucklow are tipped to arrive. The governing body intends to write to its member club this week asking for clarification on recent events at Ibrox.

It remains to be seen if Ashley would be allowed, as has been mooted, to underwrite a future share issue and become the single largest stakeholder in the club.

But he is a shrewd and successful operator. It would be unwise to bet against him presenting the SFA with a compelling case and seizing even greater power at Rangers.