Given that we are at a critical juncture in the short lifetime of Sevco 5088 FC (Holding Company Vehicle if you want to apply their nickname), you'd think Dave King would have more to worry about.
Like his nemesis Mike Ashley taking the SFA to court for passing convicted tax-offender King as 'fit and proper'.
Like his nemesis Mike Ashley wanting the money that he owes him back.
And (apologies for labouring the point), his nemesis Mike Ashley wanting to crush this usurper from the Transvaal for the certain matter of an attempted humiliation viz-a-vis the March Putsch of 2015.
After all, Mike Ashley is a genuine billionaire and King is a bit strapped for cash (wine cellars come before running football clubs you know).
So you would think his Royal Glibness would be out in the back garden digging up those krugerands buried at the bottom of the Outspan tree?
Apparently not. Today, King - coincidentally enough on the same day that Charles Green's lawyer made some very interesting comments about Sevco being a different club to the entity that was liquidated three years ago - released a bombastic statement on: www.rangers.co.uk
Here it is in its full glory:
It is disappointing that a debate has re-emerged around the subject of Rangers’ history in Scottish football. It must be especially frustrating for the Club’s supporters who again find individuals within the structures of Scottish football unfairly targeting the Club.
As the one individual who was a major shareholder and director throughout the period that gave rise to the HMRC dispute, and again find myself in a similar capacity, I believe that I am uniquely positioned to make three important observations.
First, irrespective of the final outcome of the tax appeal (which might take several more years) the football team had no advantage from any tax savings from the scheme put in place by the Murray Group. Throughout the period in question the shareholders were committed to providing funding to the Club. The tax scheme may have reduced the need for shareholders to provide higher levels of funding so, as I have tried to make clear in the past, any advantage gained would have been to the company and its shareholders, not the team. Certain players may not have signed for the Club without the perceived benefit of personal tax savings but there was no general advantage for the player squad, or the performance on the pitch. We would still have signed players of equal abilities if one or two had decided they didn’t want to sign under different financial circumstances.
Secondly, Lord Nimmo Smith has fully and finally dealt with the legitimacy of the continuity of the Club’s history. There is no more to be debated on that issue.
Finally, it is extraordinary that representatives of other Scottish clubs – who admit the damage done to Scottish football by Rangers’ removal from the Premier League – should even wish to re-engage with this issue. It is time those individuals, who represent other clubs, recognise their legal and fiduciary responsibilities to their own clubs and shareholders rather than submit to the uninformed ramblings of a few outspoken fans to whom attacking Rangers is more important than the well-being of their own clubs.
This is a misguided attempt (that will ultimately fail) to rewrite history and defeat Rangers off the park when their teams could not do so on the park at the time. The history of many other clubs would have to be rewritten if this illogical argument was to be consistently applied.
Having reviewed documentation that has become available to me I believe that Rangers was harshly and, in some instances, unfairly treated in the period leading up to demotion from the Premier League. However, that is now history and I have publicly stated, with the full support of the recently installed board, that we wish to put the past behind us and move on in partnership with all clubs throughout Scotland to improve and restore the image and quality of Scottish football as a whole. This will be to the benefit of all clubs.
For the avoidance of doubt, however, I wish to make one point clear. If the history of our Club comes under attack we will deal with it in the strongest manner possible and will hold to account those persons who have acted against their fiduciary responsibilities to their own clubs and to Scottish football.
They didn't because there wasn't a cat in Hell's chance of getting them. They'd be the first to acknowledge that.
Those clubs couldn't afford them and neither could Rangers 1872-2012 - unless....
Unless there was a way to lure them to Ibrox by inflating their wage packets by not giving the taxman his cut.
Of course you'd know all about not giving the taxman his cut wouldn't you Dave? You only gave it to your local one when a judge threatened to throw you in prison if you didn't.
And as was decided in court last week Dave, the club you were formally a director of lost the big tax case appeal.
There was no wriggle room in the verdict - Rangers 1872-2012 had cheated.
Now I'm sure that club still would have attracted a certain calibre of player higher to that of your provincial rivals had your old team conducted its business properly.
But that particular point that you make is irrelevant - because it didn't happen.
The tax case verdict from last week also calls into question Lord Nimmo Smith's findings.
Three years ago, he had been working on the basis that what the old club did was above board. That's been smashed out of the park with last week's result in court.
As for other clubs trying to re-write history, there's only one club that's trying to do that Dave and that's yours.
Maybe if you didn't, fans of other clubs may cut you a bit more slack instead of rightly being angry at you and your club insulting and patronising the rest of Scottish football.
With regard to holding to account "those persons who have acted against their fiduciary responsibilities to their own clubs and to Scottish football", as a former manager of your former (now deceased) football club once fumed: "Who are these people?"
Name names Dave as people might get the wrong idea about you slinging mud for the sake of it.
After all, they got the wrong idea about you having "north of £20million" to invest in Scottish football's youngest SPFL member.
And as for you talking about your club re: the tax case, well Dave, last week you were saying your club was not "party to the proceedings" and that the aforementioned proceedings were "a matter for those affected by them".
But, as pointed out elsewhere in this blogsite, Mr King is a man of many contradictions.
Today was the latest example. Compare this boorish nonsense with what the adoptive Boer from Castlemilk said to the Daily Mail in 2012 about his old club using EBTs to gain an unfair advantage.
Here's what he said:
I think we should be sorry - and I certainly am sorry. We owe both the Rangers fans and the Scottish footballing public an apology.
Some of the representations made have betrayed more of a victim status. But I think somebody needs to apologise.
Clearly, that is not for Charles Green to do. But I am happy to say that I really believe we should be saying sorry and I think there is something to be sorry about.
And as a former director when these things were going on, I am minded to do so.
With regard to EBTs, I was on the board so I have to take some responsibility.
And I follow the logic of the argument that if we lose the tax case then we probably gained some competitive advantage.
I believe that, on behalf of myself and most of the board members who were with me and probably agree with me, that we should apologise for that.
I know that the Murray Group might not say that, because it might be tantamount to admitting it.
Given what Mr King has said today, it would seem the 'Voortrekker of Ibrox' has been hoisted by his own petard.
Unless of course he was lying when he spoke with the Daily Mail in 2012.
And that wouldn't be the first time he's done such a thing.
After all, what was it that Judge Brian Southwood said of him in North Gauteng High Court?
Still, Dave King will continue his charade of convincing the gullible masses of Govan that he has an infinite amount of snake oil in that warchest of his.
More fool them.
As the 17th century French author, François de La Rochefoucauld, once wrote....
"One may outwit another, but not all the others."