CRAIG Whyte’s £24 million loan from a London-based investment firm to buy Rangers – secured by the rights to future season ticket sales – was kept quiet from fans for “commercial reasons”, according to one of Whyte’s key business partners.

The claim was made in the High Court in Glasgow by Philip Betts, who subsequently became a director at the club.

Betts explained that the deal with Ticketus was kept under wraps from the seller of the club, Sir David Murray, because they did not want the club’s fans to know 10 per cent of the season ticket money was going to “an English fund”.

Before Whyte took over Rangers in May 2011, the Ibrox club was 85 per cent owned by Murray – but was sold for £1 with conditions contained in a share purchase agreement.

Prosecutors in Whyte’s fraud trial allege he cleared the club’s £18m bank debt by getting a £24m loan from Ticketus against three years of future club season ticket sales.

Whyte’s QC Donald Findlay suggested to Betts, a former Rangers director, that Ticketus wanted the deal kept quiet for “commercial reasons” and because they did not want the club’s fans to know 10 per cent of the season ticket money was going to “an English fund”.

Betts had earlier accepted it would have been “misleading” not to have revealed the role of Ticketus.

But quizzed about the lead-up to the May 2011 buyout he claimed Ticketus feared that disclosure would prompt club owner Murray to try to set up his own deal with the company and not want to do business with him.

As Betts’ testimony was wrapped up the jury heard that Whyte was originally going to pay £5m for the shares, but it was dropped to £1 after the would-be buyer heard unexpected late news of a potential £2.8m debt to the taxman and a £1.7m Ibrox improvements bill which the new owners would have to take on.

Findlay pointed out that the extra costs should have taken £4.5m off the original original asking price, and that Murray could have asked for £500,000.

“So, in any view of it, they just took half a million pounds of it and chucked it out the window,” he said. “They could have said, we will take £500k but they didn’t even do that?” he asked.

“No,” replied Betts.

Whyte, 46, denies the two charges against him, one of acquiring the club fraudulently in May 2011 and another of “financial assistance” under the Companies Act – which centres on the £18m payment between Whyte’s Wavetower company and Rangers, using Ticketus, to clear the bank debt with Lloyds.

Part of the allegations against Whyte is that he pretended to Murray and others that “funds were available” to make all agreed-to payments.

These are said to also include the £2.8m “small tax case” liability, the £1.7m health-and-safety liability plus £5m for the playing squad.

Findlay tackled the legality of the Ticketus deal with Betts – an English asset finance broker – by suggesting that from the outset the “main third-party funders” knew the deal would only be completed after Whyte became the owner of Rangers.

“And they wanted, for commercial reasons [for it] to be kept private, and you were aware of that,” asked the QC.

“Yes,” replied Betts, who became a director of Rangers after the sale of the majority shareholding to Whyte.

“It wasn’t because anyone was trying to hide anything illegal, it was because they didn’t want the public at large, football fans, to know that they were giving 10 per cent of their money to an English fund and you knew that,” said Findlay.

Betts agreed and then confirmed that the non-disclosure agreement between Ticketus and Whyte about the season ticket deal was not unusual in the world of business and that the former Rangers owner was obligated to keep quiet.

“And, of course, by keeping it quiet he misled the other side of the deal?” asked Findlay.

“Yes,” replied Betts.

“But was the bank paid?” inquired the QC.

“Yes,” answered Betts.

“And was the club in a better position than it had been before the deal?” added Findlay.

“Yes,” Betts responded.

Whyte’s aide further agreed that the business plan involved getting rid of the club’s debt, making it more attractive to investors, saving on paying the bank interest and hoping to have a run in the Champions League to bring in revenue. “The bank is paid, the stadium is fixed, the tax case was appealed, players were signed ... and Rangers should never have gone near Malmo,” said Findlay. Rangers’ hopes of reaching the valuable group stages of the Champions League were shattered as they crashed out of the competition at the hands of the Swedish side.

In re-examination by prosecutor Alex Prentice, Betts agreed there were two business models operating – one that Whyte and Ticketus knew about and a separate plan, namely that Wavetower would produce the £20m.

“So the owner Murray ... would see an entirely different model from the one that you knew was going to happen?” asked Prentice. “Only in the names, the model was the same but the names had changed,” Betts countered.

Betts agreed with Prentice that it looked like the money was coming into the club from an external source, rather than “using the club’s money to meet an obligation in terms of the share purchase agreement”.

Prentice continued, “If Murray was told that Mr Whyte was to use existing assets of the club to meet the obligation to pay the bank, which was fundamental to the share purchase agreement, what do you think he would have said?”. “I don’t know. My understanding was they were getting pressure from elsewhere to do this transaction, [it was] not just David Murray looking to sell the club,” replied the witness.

At the start of the week Whyte was told he would be “mad” to takeover Rangers, the court heard. Former club secretary Gary Withey – who was also Whyte’s lawyer – said he warned the venture capitalist that Murray’s advisers had not been “open and candid” about the financial state of the club. Withey was quizzed about a so-called “data room” set up for any takeover. He replied: “I came into five A4 box files and I was told that was the data room. I was shocked.”

On Tuesday, the jury heard that Whyte “laughed” when Withey advised him to walk away from the Rangers takeover because he “didn’t like the feel of the transaction”.

Jurors heard Withey was “concerned” that the Murray group would not go through with the takeover if they knew how it would be funded.

Asked why, the witness said: “Because they probably wouldn’t have liked the thought of him using Ticketus.”

He told the court that the proposal was “not concealed but it wasn’t revealed”.

On Wednesday, jurors heard Ticketus had concerns the deal with Whyte may “embarrass” them and Murray as well as upset supporters who might “boycott” buying season tickets if they found out. Earlier, Ross Bryan – a fund manager for Ticketus – when asked what was discussed at a meeting with Whyte, said: “In very broad terms, Mr Whyte explained that he was from this neck of the woods, a fan of the club and would be interested in making an offer to the owner to see if they would sell.”

He told the court that after Christmas when the deal had not closed the firm was “keen” to make sure Murray knew they were involved or that a financial institution was involved. The Whyte takeover was sealed with a £1 coin being tossed across a table in Murray’s office, the court heard on Thursday.

The trial, before Judge Lady Stacey, continues.