Yesterday we did a piece on Michael Stewart’s praise of Douglas Park and others, and for stepping up to the plate to steer Rangers in these uncertain times, but we omitted the more negative side of his comments, which was criticism of Dave King’s departure.

Let’s look at the former Rangers trialist’s comments:

“That is why I emphasised how important it is to lead from the front and give the credit to those who have stepped up to the plate. That is why I am surprised, I know it is within the four month period he spoke about, but these are unprecedented times. I would have thought, expected, as I speak about the leaders, to have stayed to try to see through this period. The baton has been passed to Douglas Park and John Bennett and credit to them for taking it up but I am surprised that there has been this change from Dave King at this moment in time I have to say.”

Stewart is right to say King has only done what he said he would, but is he also right to say King should have stayed during these tumultuous times?

That the South African-based businessman should have reversed his decision (and we’ll have a piece on that later) and remained chairman to keep Rangers stable during this tough period?

There are two sides to this:

The first is that, yes, these are unprecedented times and the head of the club technically speaking had the responsibility to steer the club during them, despite stating he was going to leave. That he was the one who came in to get us away from the dodgy regimes of the past, and now he too was going to leave us in the lurch.

However, whatever our opinions of the former chairman, he didn’t owe us anything, and had admitted from the word go his tenure at Ibrox was completely reluctant in the first place, and he didn’t want the responsibility from the off, but had considered it his duty. As such, he set up a task force and had been grooming Douglas Park for this role for the best part of two+ years so it wasn’t like he was leaving us in the hands of Ronnie and Reggie.

So, yes, morally speaking maybe King should have remained as club head during such a perilous time in global history, but even more morally speaking hadn’t he already done enough?

We’re torn on this one, and regulars know we’ve had both positive and negative things to say about King’s time at Ibrox, which is the ideal role rather than blindly praising or unnecessarily criticising.