Stuart Bathgate: Hostility and bleak finances drive truck tycoon away Published on Wednesday 9 May 2012 01:40 BILL Miller mentioned two principal factors in his decision to withdraw his offer for Rangers: the hitherto unrevealed financial state of the club, and the hostility towards him expressed by many supporters. The first factor, disclosed to him as part of the due diligence process, has yet to be made fully public. The second, by contrast, was there for all to see on internet message boards last night - although the target for the wrath of many fans following the American's withdrawal was administrators Duff & Phelps. Since being appointed by Rangers majority shareholder Craig Whyte in mid-February, Paul Clark and David Whitehouse of Duff & Phelps have been the subject of growing suspicion from supporters. Now, even some fans who had previously felt they should temper their frustration appear willing to blame the administrators for the continuing plight of the Ibrox club. On Followfollow.com, reaction to the administrators" announcement of Miller's withdrawal was scathing. "Liars" was the verdict of several posters. "Just get a move on and sort this farce out" was one of the milder reactions. "It's time we fought back against these charlatans" was another. Some responses, however, were altogether more militant, with one poster calling for tougher action against Clark and Whitehouse. "We need to target them with proper protests," he or she said. Not over the phone, not on the internet but at their place of work and hotels. The fact that Duff & Phelps were Whyte's appointees has done nothing to endear them to Rangers fans, and the fact that Miller was named preferred bidder by them has led some to conclude that he too must be connected in some strange way with Whyte. The Blue Knights consortium led by former club director Paul Murray has received the backing of an overwhelming majority of supporters, and some suspect that Duff & Phelps have either not done enough to facilitate the Blue Knights" bid or have actively favoured other potential bidders in general, and Miller in particular. And the suspicion is not all one way. Some sources connected with Miller have expressed their concern - again, not backed up by any hard and fast evidence - that Clark and Whitehouse and related individuals were going about their business in a way designed to make a Blue Knights takeover more likely. No matter how hard-nosed a businessman he may be, this whole process must have disconcerted Miller. He lives in a society where entrepreneurs are lauded, where the ability to make money is admired, and where an expressed willingness to share some of that money is welcomed. What he has come up against over the past couple of weeks is a culture in which entrepreneurs are distrusted and an offer to put a substantial sum into an ailing business is regarded as a cunning plan to make matters worse. Of course, given the previous example set by Whyte, some of the suspicion of Miller is natural, even healthy. The American's advisers have suggested that, in addition to the £11.2 million purchase price, he planned to inject £10 million per year into the club for several years to bridge the gap between income and expenditure. To which Rangers fans, and indeed everyone else, were entitled to say: Show us the money. But some of the reaction to Miller has gone well beyond the natural and the healthy, and must have done more than merely perturb him as an individual. Besides perhaps being surprised by the level of abuse he has received and by the close interest in his personal life from some elements of the media, Miller must have concluded that the hostility would amount to a commercial risk. Put simply, if you're interested in buying a shop, only to find that many of its most loyal customers have taken an instant dislike to you and don't want you to invest, you may conclude that you are fighting an uphill battle and should therefore not go through with the purchase. Part of Miller's rationale for bidding was a belief that Rangers could be a far more successful business than they are at present given the size of their support. But that analysis relied on the continued - or rather increased - adherence of that support. What has become clear over the last few days is that that adherence cannot be guaranteed. So where does all this leave Rangers? Almost certainly in a worse predicament than before, for several reasons. First, time is moving on and the money is running out. Duff & Phelps have funding in place for only a little longer. If new money is not forthcoming from a new owner, liquidation looks like being the only option. Second, Miller's claim that the financial picture at Rangers is blacker than it had been painted could worry other potential bidders. It certainly will not encourage them to rush in to make an offer. And, third, any such bidders may think twice about getting involved if they too are told - by email or phone, never mind at their place of work or hotels - that they are not wanted. The Blue Knights are wanted but so far have not come up with the kind of sum which the administrators think will be enough to satisfy the club's creditors. Those administrators have certain legal obligations. They cannot simply say: "Oh, all right then, the fans want the Blue Knights so let's sell to them." And, if the Blue Knights lack the wherewithal, and if the Rangers support lacks the willingness to engage with any other possible bidders, where does that leave the club? Deep in debt, and slowly consuming its last few ounces of energy before collapsing in on itself and becoming a black hole.