CRAIG Whyte’s deal to buy Rangers with the help of money from the rights to future season ticket sales was known about in advance by the UK’s takeover regulator.
A fraud trial jury has been shown details of a note in which a representative of the Takeover Panel, the independent body which polices company mergers and buyouts, recognised that there was a deal in place with London-based investment firm Ticketus to raise funds to clear the club’s £18 million debt with Lloyds Banking Group when Whyte took over.
The file note that was dated on March 30, 2011, 37 days before Whyte took over the 85 per cent shareholding of Sir David Murray – sold for £1 with conditions contained in a share purchase agreement.
Murray earlier told the trial he would “categorically not” have handed the club over if that was how a deal was being financed.
Solicitor David Horne – a key adviser to Murray – was asked by Whyte’s QC Donald Findlay if it would surprise him if the Takeover Panel knew of the Ticketus deal.
He replied: “That would surprise me.”
Findlay went on to show Horne the note from a Raymond Phillips at the Takeover Panel which talked about the “current proposal” and said: “Craig Whyte would use future sales of season tickets to replace Lloyds bank funding”.
Findlay suggested that a “whole range of people” knew about the Ticketus deal and that Murray could have found out.
Horne said that it was “not obvious at all” and said: “We had no knowledge”.
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.
Earlier Horne was shown a note which it was suggested showed he knew in November 2010 that Whyte was in contact with Ticketus over a £15 million loan facility. But Horne said that he thought it was just for working capital for the club after takeover.
Findlay suggested the Murray team wanted to sell “for right reasons or not” provided Rangers bank debt was cleared. He questioned Horne on how much was spent on “due diligence” on Whyte before the takeover, noting that other bidders were checked by accountants PwC.
Horne initially replied, “Not very much at all”.
Findlay asked: “£20? More? Less?”
The witness: “I don’t know – possibly nothing.”
Findlay: “That was what was spent – nothing?”
Horne agreed and said they “did searches on the internet”. He added: “We took comfort that he had reputable advisors.
“If anything had been thrown up that suggested any impropriety the deal would not have gone ahead.”
Findlay also asked about an email from one of Murray’s key advisers, Mike McGill, that “let slip” there were other investors.
Asked if that was investigated, Horne said, “no”, and added that Whyte should have made the disclosure.
Prosecutor Alex Prentice QC later went on to ask Horne: “On the face of it, was Murray keen to complete the deal?”
The witness: “Yes.”
Prentice: “Would he have sold no matter what?”
Horne: “No.”
The week began with the jury hearing that Craig Whyte had told a prospective business partner that his firm had £60m of assets. London financier John Newlands said he had seen documents relating to Whyte’s Liberty Capital company.
On Wednesday, David Gillespie, an ex-associate of Craig Whyte, said he was “annoyed” after discovering £1 million had left their company Merchant Turnaround to apparently help fund the Rangers takeover.
And on Thursday, it was claimed the brother of football manager David Moyes was the “duped” middle man in an apparent “con” to try and buy Rangers in 2010. But it turned out the proposal involved a forged bank letter as well as fears one of the duo was a crook.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article