If its a choice between having a club to support - hopefully for the long term, but with a wassock of a chairman, or no club because we could not agree which wassock was the least awful, then yes - surely?
And most fans anyway (not RAB-folk, obviously) will hardly care which wassock is in charge (since they usually regard the chairman and his board as wassocks anyway?) as long as there is SOMEONE in charge to blame and moan about?
And if - as I do - you continue to believe that any period of administration presents threats too serious to risk, then you'd support the strategy that seeks to preserve the going concern? But not take your bat home if that failed?
That does not mean you have to LIKE the alternatives on offer as Chairman. As it happens, I would not wish for either if a better alternative - any alternative - was to manifest himself. Maybe one WILL should Mr Caisley, having had his revenge, then decided to sell his holding? But I'd not stop supporting the Bulls simply because of the wassock in charge, unless something outrageous happened. And neither I think would most fans? Which I think is the point Bulliac was making?