It's a hackneyed argument because it misses the point, a point which numerous posters are making to you, but you are either unable or unwilling to grasp.
The aim of business is to make money. In the case of Rangers this can be achieved by asset stripping, debt dumping and liquidation OR long term extraction of money by building the brand, while turning a profit from ticket sales, merchandise and advertising.
Let's be really whacky, and assume that both King and Ashley were interested in Rangers for business reasons (rather than because they are crazed megalomaniacs on a wild ego trip.
Who was best placed to run Rangers as a going concern?