Rangers might make the next move in their legal battle with the Scottish Football Association to prevent a "disaster" for themselves and the Scottish game, according to Charles Green.
Green, who is leading the consortium in place to buy the club, said their legal team would consider the options after the holiday weekend.
Rangers overturned a 12-month transfer embargo in the Court of Session on Tuesday but the issue was sent back to the SFA's appeal process.
With a transfer ban apparently unlawful, the SFA rules offer little respite for Rangers for bringing the game into disrepute over their non-payment of tax last season.
The club, who currently owe more than £21million in tax, face ejection from the Scottish Cup or suspension or expulsion from the game in general unless a new tribunal rules the maximum £100,000 fine is sufficient for their non-payment.
The wisdom of Rangers' court action has been called into question on two counts - they now face more severe punishment for their failure to pay tax plus further potential sanctions for taking the matter to court in defiance of FIFA and SFA rules.
Green, whose offer to creditors will be voted on on June 14th, on Sunday recognised the club had placed themselves in a difficult situation but insisted they had little choice but to go to court.
Lord Glennie accepted Rangers' argument that the SFA rules did not allow an appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport but the judge admitted himself the club could now be hit with a more severe punishment.
The SFA accepted Lord Glennie's proposal that the case be referred back to their appeal stage, which would leave Rangers with no recourse for appeal if the new tribunal gives them an additional punishment that is clearly within their rules.
So Rangers, who first argued the matter should be dropped completely before arguing it should be sent back to the original SFA disciplinary panel, are considering their options.
They could appeal to the Court of Session in a bid to move the case back to the first stage or be annulled - or they could even accept the transfer ban in fear of greater punishment.
In a statement, Green said: "On behalf of the consortium purchasing the Rangers Football Club, it is my firm view that it is vitally important for the current issue of the SFA player embargo to be resolved and neither I nor my investors wish to see an outcome that would be to the detriment of Scottish football.
"Throughout this process, the club, the administrators and most importantly the supporters have taken the view that any sanction against Rangers - due entirely to the misdeeds of individuals no longer at the club - should be proportionate.
"We and the administrators did not want to take the matter to a civil court at all.
"Unfortunately, the route to apply to the Court of Arbitration in Sport was not open to the Club because the SFA's own articles fail to include a specific provision permitting appeals to CAS and the Judicial Panel Protocol contains a rule which prohibits any form of appeal to CAS or any other body.
"Our position has been endorsed by Lord Glennie in the Court of Session. The club was prohibited from appealing to CAS by the SFA's own rules.
"The Judicial Review was not an appeal, rather it was the club exercising its right under Scots Law to have the court review whether or not the imposition of the transfer embargo was within the power of the tribunals of the Judicial Panel.
"All of the appeal points put to the appellate tribunal relating to the harsh and excessive nature of the embargo were dropped as it would not have been appropriate to have taken those to the Court of Session.
"Rangers is a wholly committed member of the SFA and SPL and fully respects their structures.
"Lord Glennie has referred the matter back to the Appellate Tribunal which heard the club's appeal and we note a hearing is due to take place in due course. Either party has 21 days to consider an appeal.
"It is the club's view that the matter should in fact have been referred back to the original tribunal which imposed the transfer ban because the appellate tribunal, in its written judgement, made clear the view they held on the appropriate alternative sanction to be imposed in the event that the transfer ban was successfully challenged.
"We are fully aware that one of the sanctions available to the Appellate Tribunal should the matter be referred back there is the suspension or termination of Rangers Football Club's membership of the SFA.
"That in our view would be a disaster for Scottish football and a major setback to our plans to take Rangers forward after a particularly difficult period in its history.
"Equally, the alternative sanction of expulsion from the Scottish Cup is itself a very serious punishment which would also have a severe impact on Scottish football as well as on our club.
"We will be considering with our legal team the best way forward after the public holiday."
The SFA announced on Thursday night they would reconvene an appeals panel as suggested by Lord Glennie, but did not set a date for the hearing.
Chief executive Stewart Regan added they were in consultation with FIFA over the issue.
The SFA quickly released a statement stressing that Rangers took their court action without exploring any other option.
An SFA statement read: "In referring the matter to the Court of Session, Rangers FC utilised the court's right of Supervisory Jurisdiction contained within Scots Law.
"Given that any two parties can seek arbitration, the club was not 'prohibited from appealing to the Court of Arbitration for Sport', as was claimed.
"Indeed, no representation was made by the club to the Scottish FA to discuss the possibility or the process of seeking arbitration via the Court of Arbitration for Sport before Judicial Review was actioned.